Trotskyist sabotages

[The Cheshire Cat]

Could anyone share his knowledge concerning this matter? I hear sometimes about them during Stalin threads, but I don't know anything about them. Did they really happen? And why and where?
Thank you.

[Per Levy]

get in the trenches. flamewar incoming.

[Amal]

Could anyone share his knowledge concerning this matter? I hear sometimes about them during Stalin threads, but I don't know anything about them. Did they really happen? And why and where?
Thank you.
The Great Conspiracy Against Russia by Albert Kahn and Michael Sears. You can also read Mission to Moscow by Joseph E Davis, US ambassador to USSR at that time. He himself was present at the court during the whole trial period and a very important eye-witness. There are also numerous eye-witnesses in the court. I am giving a list below.
1) Foyeth Bhangar, German writer
2) Ward Price, British citizen and representative of British newspaper Daily Mail
3) Dudley Collard, UK barrister and member of committee of "National Council of Civil Liberties" and "Howard League for Social Reform".
Moscow representative of US based newspaper "Observer", "Daily Herald", "New York Times" Walter Durante, Harold Denny, "News Chronicle".
The names listed above are a small percentage of people (non USSR citizens) who were present at the court during the Moscow trial. In addition to Davies, diplomats from other countries were also present at the court during the trial. Davies, on his book, mentioned that when in the evening diplomats around the world meet at some place to discuss the trial, none there expressed any kind of doubt about the trial process and the documents produced.
Moreover, US engineer John D Littlegauge in his book In Search of Soviet Gold described how the convicts of Moscow trial Piatakov and others forced him to buy low grade useless machinery at a very high price. Initially, he thought that it's nothing but petty corruption like other countries, but later during the trail he had understood that those money had been used in internal sabotages.

[daft punk]

I did a thread on the Moscow trials. Funny, not a single Stalinist has posted on it.

Amal, your post is misleading. You imply that because there were a few foreigners present at times, that the charges must be true. Next time you are in court on false charges, facing certain death, allow me to turn up and give it some credibility simply by my presence.

The fact is that even the bourgeois historians, who mostly hate Trotsky, all admit the trials were show trials. After Stalin died Khrushchev admitted it.

The charges were ludicrous to start with - all the leading Bolsheviks had become Nazi agents! You couldnt make shit like that up. Well, obviously Stalin did.

He got false confessions from Kamenev etc by promising to spare them and lots of other people if they 'confessed'. Some of the people who confessed were actually Stalin's spies who had infiltrated. I think he killed them too!

[Leftsolidarity]

I did a thread on the Moscow trials. Funny, not a single Stalinist has posted on it.



You seem to post this in every single thread.

[Aurora]

No nothing like that happened, Trotskyite wreckers became the general excuse when something negative happened like when production didn't reach the planned level it was wreckers. It followed on from the show trials where the best bolsheviks where all found guilty of terrorism and sabotage when there was no evidence of any at all, i believe in one case a bolshevik was found guilty of derailing a train when the train didn't derail etc.

See my sig in blue for another outrageous lie \/

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I did a thread on the Moscow trials. Funny, not a single Stalinist has posted on it.

Stop saying that over and over again. That fact is not a victory for Trotskyism, it is just proof that we Marxist-Leninists and even other tendencies do not give two shits.


Amal, your post is misleading. You imply that because there were a few foreigners present at times, that the charges must be true. Next time you are in court on false charges, facing certain death, allow me to turn up and give it some credibility simply by my presence.

They are called witnesses for a reason and if you and a bunch of other Westerners were at Amal's Soviet trial, I would also believe your accounts.


The fact is that even the bourgeois historians, who mostly hate Trotsky, all admit the trials were show trials. After Stalin died Khrushchev admitted it.

So why are you taking your information from bourgeoisie historians, who in reality hate Stalin much more than anyone else because he was actually the man who was a threat to them. I would not trust Khrushchev either; he is obviously not the best source to get information from, considering his various attempts at accusing Stalin of false crimes. He even went as far as trying to get the Politburo to sign a KGB document incorrectly saying that Stalin was a pedophile.


The charges were ludicrous to start with - all the leading Bolsheviks had become Nazi agents! You couldnt make shit like that up. Well, obviously Stalin did.

When did he say they were all Nazis? He (not really he, but in reality the government and the courts) said that they were capitalist agitators and needed to be punished according to Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code.


He got false confessions from Kamenev etc by promising to spare them and lots of other people if they 'confessed'. Some of the people who confessed were actually Stalin's spies who had infiltrated. I think he killed them too!

That goes against your former argument that they all knew they were going to die, which I think they all did (because they were criminals).

I do not know what you are trying to say in those last two sentences.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is great. A thread on who was hated more by the bourgeois press, Stalin or Trotsky.

[Red Rabbit]

And so it begins with the first M-L stepping into the arena.

[Grenzer]

You seem to post this in every single thread.

Yeah, I had a serious sense of deja vu. I think he's literally posted that same exact sentence verbatim in half a dozen threads.

[thriller]

They are called witnesses for a reason and if you and a bunch of other Westerners were at Amal's Soviet trial, I would also believe your accounts

There is an old Russian saying: "He lies like an eye witness." In general witnesses have a really bad track record due to human error such as forgetfulness, distortion/coercion, and lying. I don't want to get into the thread too much (frankly because it doesn't further proletarian revolution whatsoever), but I think it's important to note that witnesses alone are usually unreliable in most cases.

[Brosip Tito]

Trotsky Sabotaged my spaghetti by adding too much garlic!!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is an old Russian saying: "He lies like an eye witness." In general witnesses have a really bad track record due to human error such as forgetfulness, distortion/coercion, and lying. I don't want to get into the thread too much (frankly because it doesn't further proletarian revolution whatsoever), but I think it's important to note that witnesses alone are usually unreliable in most cases.

Exactly, I remember studying in my psychology class about how in many cases courts are no longer allowing eye witnesses to testify because they give faulty information which causes far more damage to trying to understand what happened than anything breakthrough gained.

[Omsk]

This is a complicated question,and cant be adressed with a simplistic and ignorant view on things,because the issue of the pressance of various anti-Soviet groups is not doubtful,and should not be a debateable topic,because,subversives,sure did exist.However,while some people exaggerte the number of subversives and terrorists,some people also exaggerate the number of people who were persecuted on various grounds.Many serious historians and knowledgable figures note of this.


To the rest of the world it seemed at the time that Russia was enveloped in a smothering atmosphere of plots, murders, and purges. Actually this was a superficial view since, although the rest of the world was morbidly interested in the trials to the exclusion of anything else about Russia, only a tiny percentage of the population was involved and the same years which saw the treason trials saw some of the greatest triumphs of Soviet planning. While the screws tightened on a tiny minority the majority of Soviet people were enjoying greater prosperity and greater freedom.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 30

It was easy, reading our newspapers, to believe that the whole of Russia was in the throes of trials and executions. This was not a true picture. Russia was building during this period--industrializing, rearming, educating--faster perhaps that any other country.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 31

Reading this tedious catalog of never-ending arrests and trials, we are bound to imagine that the country's state of mind in that terrible year 1937 was one of deep depression. Not a bit of it! The great majority of the population woke up happily to the relentless blare of loudspeakers, sped eagerly to work, participated enthusiastically in the daily public meetings at which their enemies were anathematized, and read skimpy newspaper reports of the trials which showed how very reliable the secret police were.
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 386

In the so called Moscow trials 55 people got capital punishment and 7 imprisonment. Most of those prosecuted were persons in high positions in the party, the state apparatus and the army accused of treason, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, corruption or collaboration with the enemy, Nazi Germany. The Moscow trials were followed by trials in other parts of the country against companions of the traitors tried in Moscow, and hundreds of saboteurs, spies and all kinds of traitors were condemned to prison or death. The trials were public except trials against military personnel, which were held behind closed doors because of the secrecy in the defence preparations against Nazi Germany. In Moscow the trials were monitored by the international press and the accredited diplomatic corps, for which seats were reserved in the court room.
Sousa, Mario. The Class Struggle During the Thirties in the Soviet Union, 2001.

Another example is the fact that many historians,even those with hard anti-Stalin views,follow the notion that the number of those who were persecuted on some grounds,were simply too high.

(For the anti-Stalin view)

...For one thing, the archival evidence from the secret police rejects the astronomically high estimates often given for the number of terror victims.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. xiv

In any event, the data available at this point make it clear that the number shot in the two worst purge years [1937-38] was more likely in the hundreds of thousands than in the millions.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 591

Because of these uncertainties, there is still controversy about the accuracy of these data, and no reason to believe them to be final or exact. One cannot stress enough that with our current documentation, we can posit little more than general, though narrow, ranges. Still, these are the only data currently available from police archives. Moreover, there are good reasons for assuming that they are not wildly wrong because of the consistent way numbers from different sources compare with one another.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 593

And this is from Molotov,(Some of you may dissagree with this,but i also provided an anti-Stalin position.)

The charge against me [Molotov] is the same: abuse of power. The report written by that commission member...says that 1,370,000 arrests were made in the 1930s. That's too many. I responded that the figures should be thoroughly reviewed and that unwarranted arrests did occur, but that we couldn't have survived without resorting to stern measures.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 285


And on the question of the wreckers,while it can be said that there have been subversive and acts of sabotage,sometimes,the cause of the problems was the incompetence. It is noted in this particular line:
But gradually a real "wrecker" psychosis has grown up amongst the people. They have come to interpret everything that goes wrong as sabotage, whilst most certainly a great part of the defects are traceable to incompetence pure and simple.
Feuchtwanger, Lion. Moscow, 1937. New York: The Viking Press, 1937, p. 38

For an exmple,there was critical wrecking in Magnitogorsk.

All in all,there is a fact that cant be denied,and that is the fundamentally correct stance that the USSR was 'under imperialist siege' (Siege can be defined in a number of ways) and that the threath of a spy ring or a subversive stance of the home elements was indeed possible,and in order with reality,and the present state of afairs.It would be unrational to simply discard all ideas of a possible wrecking process,which in my opinion,certainly did happen in the Soviet Union,the question is,at what extent?In my opinion,it certainly reached quite worrying sizes.

[Ostrinski]

get in the trenches. flamewar incoming.See you on the other side, comrade.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Moreover, US engineer John D Littlegauge in his book In Search of Soviet Gold described how the convicts of Moscow trial Piatakov and others forced him to buy low grade useless machinery at a very high price. Initially, he thought that it's nothing but petty corruption like other countries, but later during the trail he had understood that those money had been used in internal sabotages.

Hahaha I love this. "Yeah, at first I thought it was just like in literally every single other tinpot dictatorship, but then the government produced some documents and promised that they were super legit, then I realized that it was a massive conspiracy!" :lol::lol::lol:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I
n any event, the data available at this point make it clear that the number shot in the two worst purge years [1937-38] was more likely in the hundreds of thousands than in the millions.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 59

Oh comrade Omsk, where do you find all of this stuff? But the above quote really does summarize your view, Millions weren't killed? Just a few hundred thousand party members were lined up and shot? What's the big deal, then? For Pete's sake!:glare:

[pluckedflowers]

I

Oh comrade Omsk, where do you find all of this stuff? But the above quote really does summarize your view, Millions weren't killed? Just a few hundred thousand party members were lined up and shot? What's the big deal, then? For Pete's sake!:glare:

And let's not lose our sense of priorities. After all, they were building shit at the same time!


This was not a true picture. Russia was building during this period--industrializing, rearming, educating--faster perhaps that any other country.

[Rafiq]

I love how when someone predicts flamewar it rarely happens.

[Amal]

Dear trots,
So far, what you have blabbered about is nothing but your personal blabbering. I just mentioned the names of eye-witnesses just to show that even "non-Stalinists" were present during the trial. Can you tell me what kind of witnesses can be satisfactory for you. Are you in favor of closed door trials?
@!thriller!. At least all here will agree on one fact that the witnesses can give some general view of the account, they may forget the details later.

[thriller]

Dear trots,
So far, what you have blabbered about is nothing but your personal blabbering. I just mentioned the names of eye-witnesses just to show that even "non-Stalinists" were present during the trial. Can you tell me what kind of witnesses can be satisfactory for you. Are you in favor of closed door trials?
@!thriller!. At least all here will agree on one fact that the witnesses can give some general view of the account, they may forget the details later.

Not necessarily. Yes, they may be able to give a general account. But as far as accuracy and evidence, the truth is few and far between them, and rarely is it JUST forgetfulness.

[dodger]

Clearly there was a country gone bat shit insane. This always happens with people unused to power or prestige. Upward mobility for 100's of 1000's in a short decade must surely have led to further isolation for Trotsky. Who needs him? Can we imagine a peasants daughter at the controls of a glider, a volunteer in the Medical Faculty Reserve? Flying high! What did Trotsky matter to her? Relevance? She had read that he favoured Ukraine independence ....with Hitler wolves howling outside, that smacked of base treachery. Besides he had joined Kerenski in the West and was no doubt living a life of unbridled luxury whilst plotting with her countries enemies. That was the consensus. Worst his followers had carried out acts of sabotage that had caused loss of life and economic warfare too. These insects would have to be dealt with before they became an infestation. She was pleased that firm measures were at last sanctioned, she had no wish for another civil war. Nor go back to the old days...........:laugh:

[eyeheartlenin]

You seem to post this in every single thread.

Does Leftsolidarity's response imply that the Workers World Party/Marcyism regards some or most or all, of the charges made during the Moscow trials as valid? I just ask, because, if the WWP was enthusiastic about the Moscow Trials, that enthusiasm would be consistent with the Marcyite embrace of, for instance, the Soviet invasions of Hungary (in 1956, the event that indirectly inaugurated Marcyism) and Czechoslovakia (in 1968).

[Leftsolidarity]

Does Leftsolidarity's response imply that the Workers World Party/Marcyism regards some or most or all, of the charges made during the Moscow trials as valid? I just ask, because, if the WWP was enthusiastic about the Moscow Trials, that enthusiasm would be consistent with the Marcyite embrace of, for instance, the Soviet invasions of Hungary (in 1956, the event that indirectly inaugurated Marcyism) and Czechoslovakia (in 1968).

No. It implys that Daft Punk posts that in every single thread.

WWP is trotskyist

[Grenzer]

Does Leftsolidarity's response imply that the Workers World Party/Marcyism regards some or most or all, of the charges made during the Moscow trials as valid? I just ask, because, if the WWP was enthusiastic about the Moscow Trials, that enthusiasm would be consistent with the Marcyite embrace of, for instance, the Soviet invasions of Hungary (in 1956, the event that indirectly inaugurated Marcyism) and Czechoslovakia (in 1968).

All Marcyites are really messed up. As much as I dislike Stalinism, I don't really think it's fair to take them as an example of Marxism-Leninism. They are more of your garden variety, stereotypical "Brezhnevites". Marcyism is it's own beast, one that should be treated as such. For example, the WWP, PSL, and ICL are all Marcyites, and they have more in common with each other than the tendencies which they supposedly adhere to(Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism).

[Leftsolidarity]

All Marcyites are really messed up. As much as I dislike Stalinism, I don't really think it's fair to take them as an example of Marxism-Leninism. They are more of your garden variety, stereotypical "Brezhnevites". Marcyism is it's own beast, one that should be treated as such. For example, the WWP, PSL, and ICL(Trotskyist) are all Marcyites, and they have more in common with each other than the tendencies which they supposedly adhere to(Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism).

We're too cool for tendencies bro. We like to think outside the box. That's how we do.

p.s.- don't take this seriously

[Ostrinski]

Are there any self-professed Marcyites on here?

[Grenzer]

We're too cool for tendencies bro. We like to think outside the box. That's how we do.

p.s.- don't take this seriously

The WWP and ICL(sparts) have a presence in my town. There were a few Sparts standing around selling newspapers and shit one day, and I decided to get one. That's actually how I was introduced to communism. I never became a Trotskyist, but after reading some of their things I realized that Marxism made total sense and became a communist a few hours later after doing some reading that same day. I've never seen them around since then actually, the most common political group I see around now are Lyndon LaRouche's fascists.

[Leftsolidarity]

Are there any self-professed Marcyites on here?

Well, I'm in the WWP. I don't refer to myself as a "Marcyite" though.

[Per Levy]

I love how when someone predicts flamewar it rarely happens.

ha because i predicted it, it didnt happen. joke aside usually these type of threads end in a flamewar. its good to see that it didnt happen (yet).

[daft punk]

You seem to post this in every single thread.

Yes, because it shows that the Stalinists on here are not capable of defending the purge.

Why did you think I post it?



Stop saying that over and over again. That fact is not a victory for Trotskyism, it is just proof that we Marxist-Leninists and even other tendencies do not give two shits.

see above



They are called witnesses for a reason and if you and a bunch of other Westerners were at Amal's Soviet trial, I would also believe your accounts.

These people were not witnesses they were observers and they observed very little. You clearly know nothing about this.




So why are you taking your information from bourgeoisie historians, who in reality hate Stalin much more than anyone else because he was actually the man who was a threat to them. I would not trust Khrushchev either; he is obviously not the best source to get information from, considering his various attempts at accusing Stalin of false crimes. He even went as far as trying to get the Politburo to sign a KGB document incorrectly saying that Stalin was a pedophile.

I am not taking my info just from bourgeois historians. There is plenty of info out there from all sides. Nobody believes Stalin's charges were genuine. The idea is completely ludicrous. If you want to make a case for the charges, do it here or on my thread. Do you even know what the basic charges were and what the 'evidence' was?





When did he say they were all Nazis? He (not really he, but in reality the government and the courts) said that they were capitalist agitators and needed to be punished according to Article 58 of the RSFSR Penal Code.


"How low this group had sunk was shown by overwhelming evidence that these former revolutionaries had not scrupled to make contact with the “Gestapo” (Nazi Secret Police) and get assistance from them to carry through their plans. Some of the group, it turned out, had been directly sent to the Soviet Union from abroad by Trotsky, for the purpose of organising assassinations; some had entered the Soviet Union on passports obligingly forged for them by the German “Gestapo.”

On one point all the accused men spoke with one voice: Every communication received from Trotsky harped on the theme: Kill Stalin.
One of the defendants described a meeting in Kamenev’s flat, with both Zinoviev and Kamenev present. This defendant, Lurie, had expressed his qualms at working with the “Gestapo.” Zinoviev had brushed the objection aside. “The ends justify the means,” he declared. Another of the prisoners, Fritz Olberg, told of his admission to the Soviet Union, specially for the organisation of murder groups, by means of a forged Honduras passport obtained for him through his brother from the “Gestapo.” The “Gestapo” agents had assured him that if any of the terrorists had to flee the country after carrying through the assassinations they could rest assured of a haven of refuge in Germany. He, and another of the prisoners, Fritz David, had intended to murder Stalin at the recent World Congress of the Communist International. But Olberg had been unable to secure admission, while David’s place in the hall was too far away for him to be able to carry through the job"
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1936/moscow-trial.htm




That goes against your former argument that they all knew they were going to die, which I think they all did (because they were criminals).

They feared being killed by Stalin for years. But close to the trials they were told that a 'confession' would spare their lives and/or various other people's lives.



"Some of the people who confessed were actually Stalin's spies who had infiltrated. I think he killed them too! "
I do not know what you are trying to say in those last two sentences.

Ok look at what the CPGB wrote above, about Fritz Olberg. They mean Valentin Olberg.

The CIA tracked Stalin's penetration of Trotsky's organisation for years. They were surprised how slack his security was.

CIA:

"Valentin Olberg Valentin Olberg received more publicity in the Soviet press than any other GPU-NKVD agent engaged in operations at home and abroad. The publicity was of course accorded only when he faced the tribunal posing as a remorseful terrorist and as state witness against the Trotskyists. His success as a penetration agent was not as great as that of the Sobolevicius brothers. Yet Trotsky and Sedov, ignoring urgent warnings that Olberg was obviously a GPU man, granted him access to facts that fitted into the web of disinformation required for the prosecution in the first purge trial, in 1936. As his project to become Trotsky's secretary failed, his assignment became more varied. Operating as a journalist, he excelled in provocation. Placed by the NKVD as a college history professor (without academic qualifications), he fingered for trial and execution suspected Trotskyites among the staff and student body. Finally, to render the NKVD his fullest measure of service, he posed before the tribunal as a self-confessed conspirator sent by Trotsky and Sedov to kill Stalin. This perjury enhanced the prosecution, and Olberg went free after the trial, as did several other agents with the same task. Assurance of freedom had been given them before they testified, but after the death sentences were pronounced, the NKVD had no further use for Olberg; he and the other agents were executed with the rest of the victims.
Olberg's GPU assignment in Germany began not later than 1927, when he came to Berlin to serve with the Inprekor (a Comintern publication front: International Press Correspondence). As his first letters to Trotsky in Turkey indicated, he had left that agency in December 1929, ostensibly because he opposed Stalinism. On the other hand, he insisted that he had been an oppositionist for the previous five years and that he had joined Trotsky's movement in Berlin at the time of his arrival, in 1927. His very first letter to Trotsky, containing such inconsistencies, was an offer or request for a position as his secretary. He listed his professional, linguistical, and ideological qualifications. A few paragraphs described his background: a Latvian Jew by birth; a five years' record in the oppositionist movement, beginning in Latvia; associations with Anton Grylewicz, a leading Trotskyist in Germany; and an experienced writer with the INPREKOR. Describing himself humbly in subsequent letters, Olberg expressed great pride in being able as a young man to participate in the Left Opposition. leach letter noted his achievements and eagerness to learn more, so that he could be of greater use to Trotsky.
Impressed by the obviously very promising young comrade and in urgent need of a qualified secretary, Trotsky wrote to his friend and publisher Franz Pfemfert in Berlin to interview Olberg and render his opinion. The latter's prompt reply was completely negative and replete with observations that Olberg was probably a GPU agent. Instead of a formal interview, the young man was invited to the home of the Pfemfert couple to meet three other leading T rotskyists: Max Shachtman from America, Pierre Naville from France, and Landtag deputy Kurt Landau. While the leaders were in conference, Pfemfert's wife, Anna Ramm, herself a Russian or Latvian, casually questioned Olberg. She found him evasive and false about his origin and occupation. She recognized in him the young man who in the past used to frequent the publishing offices to purchase large quantities of oppositionist literature, for delivery to Inprekor. Pfemfert and the other leaders were alarmed by Olberg's indiscreet questions regarding confidential matters of the opposition's leadership, organization and strength by countries, methods of communication, and the like. Their consensus was that he could not possibly be anything but a GPU agent. The Pfemferts, Shachtman, and Landau wrote to Trotsky separately, all in that vein, warning him to have nothing further to do with Olberg. Pfemfert's letter added:
... The cuckoo knows that the comrades are childishly naive and trustful. We must not underestimate Stalin's horde which would stop at nothing in order to place a spy among our ranks, even if it is for nothing more than having our addresses and information about our work.
... Olberg has not been proven in any way, and he is a hysterical, overbearing, and tactless type. Thus, Comrade L. T., I am sorry to tear up your possible hope of getting a Latvian comrade, but I consider it my duty as a comrade and revolutionary to state what I see.
Do not take this lightly: Have nothing to do with Olberg. In 24 hours he would become an unbearable burden and, more probably, he would try to insinuate himself into activities so as to gather reports useful to the GPU.
The urgent warnings from the oppositionist leaders in Germany, France, and the United States impressed Trotsky enough to prevent his accepting 01berg as secretary but not enough to end the correspondence with him. The contents of his letters to the "young comrade" became to a large extent operational, telling Olberg everything he asked for. Both Trotsky and his son Sedov, after May 1930, were supplying the Latvian with names and addresses of leading followers in Russia, the Baltic countries, and elsewhere. Trotsky's letters in no instance indicated doubts in the loyalty of the man or his wife, who also joined the movement. When the letters got "lost," as Olberg alleged, or when other incidents occurred that would have alerted almost anyone else, Trotsky wrote about his concern but kept up the same trustful communication, for somehow Olberg was always able to explain things promptly and convincingly. The mail, he wrote, was received and delivered to such and such a comrade. As a result, the comrade in question became suspect, just as Olberg intended. Or the discrepancies were caused by the miserable financial circumstances among the followers. Trotsky was apparently satisfied with the explanations. He sent him 98 pieces of correspondence in 1931, a volume equal to that addressed to Soble.
Olberg's role in the latter months of his association with Trotsky resembled that of Soble in other ways as well. He became an intelligence reporter on the movement, but his elaborate reports look like doctored copies of what he was submitting to the GPU boss. Into his longhand copying crept omissions and repetitions of lines and passages, similar to the oddities in Soble's papers for Trotsky.
Olberg never failed to weave lengthy questionnaires into the reports. He asked hundreds of questions about the movement, the couriers, the methods of shipping Trotsky's tracts to Russia, the addresses of confidants by countries, the mails expedited. Above all, he had made constant requests for new instructions. In a letter stating that he had no address for communicating with Arkhangelsk, Olberg confirmed the receipt of eight names and addresses of comrades in Russia. For reasons not known, he repeated this confirmation in an identical letter. Perhaps the copy had been intended for the GPU.
Olberg's correspondence and all record of him ended in March 1931. Trotsky apparently made no note about this termination. He did not mention, as he did in the case of the Sobolevicius brothers, that Olberg capitulated to Stalinism. In Trotsky's statements to the Dewey commission, however, it is noted that Olberg returned to Russia and soon thereafter went to Czechoslovakia, where the GPU launched a campaign to expel Trotskyist emigres, especially their German leader Anton Grylewicz, as agents of the Gestapo.
In 1935 Olberg was again recalled to the Soviet Union to serve as a provocateur against the Trotskyists at the Gorky Pedagogical Institute. He was supplied with Honduran citizenship.30 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#30-honduran-citizenship-was) The Consul General of that country, Lucas Parades, stationed in Berlin, made the arrangements when visiting Prague, where an intermediary named Benda delivered the documents. Before the purge tribunal Olberg testified in 1936 that Sedov supplied him with the Honduran passport and 13,000 Czech crowns for the purchase of citizenship, so that he could go to Russia to kill Stalin.31 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#31-trotsky-sedov-files)
In Moscow Olberg was first assigned to the GPU political department, which was then under the direction of Molchanov.32 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#32-probably-georgiy-aleksandrovich) In the drive to suppress Trotskyist tendencies in Soviet universities the latter assigned him, as an expert, to act under cover as a history professor at the Gorky Institute. However, both the academic staff and the local CP secretary, Yelin, who controlled it, found Olberg unqualified to teach history or anything else. In the interview he gave contradictory responses; he was not a Party member, as required of all the staff; he had no record of Party education, or of any previous employment. He was not even a Soviet citizen but a Latvian who had entered the USSR with a Honduran passport. The Institute's rejection was immediately overruled, however, by Molchanov and his boss, Yezhov. Olberg became a historian overnight, while all those who objected, and an even larger number of "Trotskyists" whom he reported, were executed.33 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#33-with-the-exception)
In addition to Olberg, the NKYD provided the prosecution with two other agents, Fritz David and Berman Yurin. All were shot within 24 hours of the verdict. Because he was the only one whose proof of personal contact with Trotsky, Sedov, and the movement abroad was well documented, Olberg served as the most important witness for prosecutor Vishinsky. The Honduran passport and the money, which he claimed to have obtained from Sedov, with instructions to go to Moscow to kill Stalin, were most direct proofs of his complicity which he fully admitted and elaborated upon in conformity with NKYD instructions. For this reason Olberg, the "would-be assassin hired by Trotsky to kill Stalin," received the greatest publicity in the Soviet press.34 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#34-sayers-and-kahn) The proceedings of the Dewey commission in Mexico exposed the complex fabrication of the agent's testimony,35 (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm#35-john-dewey-not) but Trotsky's depositions about him again attested to an irrational lack of security."


https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no1/html/v16i1a03p_0001.htm


Leon Trotsky, Dupe of the NKVD




SECRET
No Foreign Dissem
How the Soviets destroyed the Fourth International

LEON TROTSKY, DUPE OF THE NKVD

APPROVED FOR RELEASE 1994
CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM
2 JULY 96

[Comrade Jandar]

Anyone ever get the feeling that revleft is not unlike a pencil and paper RPG?

[Grenzer]

Anyone ever get the feeling that revleft is not unlike a pencil and paper RPG?

Who plays those? This is the 21st Century.

[Deicide]

And we would of gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling...

[daft punk]

This is a complicated question,and cant be adressed with a simplistic and ignorant view on things,because the issue of the pressance of various anti-Soviet groups is not doubtful,and should not be a debateable topic,because,subversives,sure did exist.However,while some people exaggerte the number of subversives and terrorists,some people also exaggerate the number of people who were persecuted on various grounds.Many serious historians and knowledgable figures note of this.


To the rest of the world it seemed at the time that Russia was enveloped in a smothering atmosphere of plots, murders, and purges. Actually this was a superficial view since, although the rest of the world was morbidly interested in the trials to the exclusion of anything else about Russia, only a tiny percentage of the population was involved and the same years which saw the treason trials saw some of the greatest triumphs of Soviet planning. While the screws tightened on a tiny minority the majority of Soviet people were enjoying greater prosperity and greater freedom.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 30

It was easy, reading our newspapers, to believe that the whole of Russia was in the throes of trials and executions. This was not a true picture. Russia was building during this period--industrializing, rearming, educating--faster perhaps that any other country.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 31

Reading this tedious catalog of never-ending arrests and trials, we are bound to imagine that the country's state of mind in that terrible year 1937 was one of deep depression. Not a bit of it! The great majority of the population woke up happily to the relentless blare of loudspeakers, sped eagerly to work, participated enthusiastically in the daily public meetings at which their enemies were anathematized, and read skimpy newspaper reports of the trials which showed how very reliable the secret police were.
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 386

In the so called Moscow trials 55 people got capital punishment and 7 imprisonment. Most of those prosecuted were persons in high positions in the party, the state apparatus and the army accused of treason, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, corruption or collaboration with the enemy, Nazi Germany. The Moscow trials were followed by trials in other parts of the country against companions of the traitors tried in Moscow, and hundreds of saboteurs, spies and all kinds of traitors were condemned to prison or death. The trials were public except trials against military personnel, which were held behind closed doors because of the secrecy in the defence preparations against Nazi Germany. In Moscow the trials were monitored by the international press and the accredited diplomatic corps, for which seats were reserved in the court room.
Sousa, Mario. The Class Struggle During the Thirties in the Soviet Union, 2001.

Another example is the fact that many historians,even those with hard anti-Stalin views,follow the notion that the number of those who were persecuted on some grounds,were simply too high.

(For the anti-Stalin view)

...For one thing, the archival evidence from the secret police rejects the astronomically high estimates often given for the number of terror victims.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. xiv

In any event, the data available at this point make it clear that the number shot in the two worst purge years [1937-38] was more likely in the hundreds of thousands than in the millions.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 591

Because of these uncertainties, there is still controversy about the accuracy of these data, and no reason to believe them to be final or exact. One cannot stress enough that with our current documentation, we can posit little more than general, though narrow, ranges. Still, these are the only data currently available from police archives. Moreover, there are good reasons for assuming that they are not wildly wrong because of the consistent way numbers from different sources compare with one another.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 593

And this is from Molotov,(Some of you may dissagree with this,but i also provided an anti-Stalin position.)

The charge against me [Molotov] is the same: abuse of power. The report written by that commission member...says that 1,370,000 arrests were made in the 1930s. That's too many. I responded that the figures should be thoroughly reviewed and that unwarranted arrests did occur, but that we couldn't have survived without resorting to stern measures.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 285


And on the question of the wreckers,while it can be said that there have been subversive and acts of sabotage,sometimes,the cause of the problems was the incompetence. It is noted in this particular line:
But gradually a real "wrecker" psychosis has grown up amongst the people. They have come to interpret everything that goes wrong as sabotage, whilst most certainly a great part of the defects are traceable to incompetence pure and simple.
Feuchtwanger, Lion. Moscow, 1937. New York: The Viking Press, 1937, p. 38

For an exmple,there was critical wrecking in Magnitogorsk.

All in all,there is a fact that cant be denied,and that is the fundamentally correct stance that the USSR was 'under imperialist siege' (Siege can be defined in a number of ways) and that the threath of a spy ring or a subversive stance of the home elements was indeed possible,and in order with reality,and the present state of afairs.It would be unrational to simply discard all ideas of a possible wrecking process,which in my opinion,certainly did happen in the Soviet Union,the question is,at what extent?In my opinion,it certainly reached quite worrying sizes.

Shit post Omsk, just you big book of quote mines pasted. No links of course.

The problem with it is that it is all lies. For example

"In the so called Moscow trials 55 people got capital punishment and 7 imprisonment. "

No mention of 10,000 Trotskyists sent to just one prison camp and then shot.

"A first directive in 1937 proposed arresting more than a quarter of a million people: around 72,000 were to be convicted, with a plan "to shoot 10,000 people in the camps". One bureaucrat described how this was carried out: "In the course of one evening we would go through up to 500 cases, and we tried people at the rate of several per minute, sentencing some to be shot, and others to various prison terms… We weren’t able to even read the summons, let alone look at the material in the dossiers"! "
http://www.socialismtoday.org/134/rogovin.html

Probably a million were expelled from the CP in the 1930s, god knows how many survived. To talk about 55 is incredibly misleading.

And they didnt just shoot oppositionists, they shot their wives, husbands and children.

Not to forget nearly a million kulaks, many of the foreign communists and so on.

Nice quote by Molotov. He stood by while his wife was sent to the gulag.

Now, where is the evidence for the ludicrous charges? There is none.

[daft punk]

Dear trots,
So far, what you have blabbered about is nothing but your personal blabbering. I just mentioned the names of eye-witnesses just to show that even "non-Stalinists" were present during the trial. Can you tell me what kind of witnesses can be satisfactory for you. Are you in favor of closed door trials?
@!thriller!. At least all here will agree on one fact that the witnesses can give some general view of the account, they may forget the details later.

Dear amal, they were not witnesses they were observers and they observed fuck all. They didnt observe these people fearing for their lives for years, being tortured in jail, being told that if the 'confessed' lots of people would be spared. They didnt know that some were actually provocateurs. They were just a handful of dimwitted people who were duped or who were sympathisers of Stalin. Have you read any of the stuff written by these 'witnesses'? It is garbage, no content. I like the way one was a reporter for a newspaper which supported the Nazis in the 1930s by the way, nice touch considering the made up charges.

[daft punk]

No. It implys that Daft Punk posts that in every single thread.

WWP is trotskyist


Well, I'm in the WWP. I don't refer to myself as a "Marcyite" though.


"While the party originally considered itself Trotskyist, is soon began to cease referring to Trotsky in their organ or to carry much, if any, Trotskyist literature. In its first decade the group leaned more to Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism), while still considered itself to have "the kind of political independence that enables revolutionaries to speak up if they see that the cause is being damaged by the policies of the leadership of socialist countries." They supported the Peoples Republic of China on the issues of the 1959 Tibetan uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising) and the Sino-Indian Border War of 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War), and endorsed both the Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward) and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Proletarian_Cultural_Revolution), but criticized their characterization of the USSR as social imperialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-imperialism), fearing that it would lead to Sino-American reproachment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-8) The party was particularly attracted to Lin Biao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Biao), praising the inclusion of him in the preamble to the 1969 Chinese Constitution.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-9) They felt that the disappearance of Lin and his associates mark "the end of an entire stage of the Cultural Revolution." They grew increasingly critical of Communist China after 1971, especially their closer relations to the west and supported the "radical faction" within China that opposed this course. After the fall of the Gang of Four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four) in 1976 they considered the Chinese leaders "reaction" and "attacking the revolutionary domestic achievements of the Mao era". By the mid 1980s the only trace of Trotskyist ideology still espoused by the WWP was the idea of the USSR and other Communist controlled countries as degenerated workers' states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state) who had to be defended against imperialism even if their leaderships needed to be criticized.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-10) Ideologically, the WWP is orthodox Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist)."

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

[manic expression]

Probably a million were expelled from the CP in the 1930s, god knows how many survived. To talk about 55 is incredibly misleading.
"God knows"? No, you don't know, you just say stuff that everyone knows is hot air.


And they didnt just shoot oppositionists, they shot their wives, husbands and children.
That's 100% a lie.


Not to forget nearly a million kulaks, many of the foreign communists and so on.
Crocodile tears for kulaks. :laugh: This coming from the poster who thinks capitalism is a "free" society.

[Amal]

Dear amal, they were not witnesses they were observers and they observed fuck all. They didnt observe these people fearing for their lives for years, being tortured in jail, being told that if the 'confessed' lots of people would be spared. They didnt know that some were actually provocateurs. They were just a handful of dimwitted people who were duped or who were sympathisers of Stalin. Have you read any of the stuff written by these 'witnesses'? It is garbage, no content. I like the way one was a reporter for a newspaper which supported the Nazis in the 1930s by the way, nice touch considering the made up charges.
Man, they were diplomats and certainly not as callous as you think. They are from imperialist countries and not STALINIST by any means. If what you have said is true, that shouldn't pass their eyes.
Incidentally, you tone matches wonderfully with the commission report that the bastard Gorby set. Is Gorbachev a trot?

[Leftsolidarity]

blah

Yeah, I like to learn everything through wikipedia too :rolleyes:

The WWP is a trotskyist party but they don't make it a big deal. We read Trotsky, we talk about his theories, we try to apply his theories. We don't worship the guy though and we don't really go around calling ourselves trotskyists for the most part because that is pointless. Just because someone isn't an annoying sectarian asshole like you doesn't mean they aren't "trotskyists".

Basically all your whole copy and paste said was that WWP was formed around trotskyist prinicples and has grown and developed as a party. It doesn't say anything about us no longer identifying with trotskyist theories.

Before you try to start classifying parties based on copy&pasting wikipedia articles why don't you sit down with some party members and talk?

[o well this is ok I guess]

I love how when someone predicts flamewar it rarely happens. It's not gonna happen in the first page, brosephicles.

[daft punk]

Man, they were diplomats and certainly not as callous as you think. They are from imperialist countries and not STALINIST by any means. If what you have said is true, that shouldn't pass their eyes.
Incidentally, you tone matches wonderfully with the commission report that the bastard Gorby set. Is Gorbachev a trot?

I didnt say they were callous, I think they were duped. I dunno exactly what they saw but we all know that some 'confessed' so they probably just believed it was genuine.

[28350]

Are there any self-professed Marcyites on here?

I was a teenaged Marcyite (come on, global class war at least sounds cool).

And yes, that is an apt label for WWP/PSL. It's a lot less abstruse than "orthodox marxism-leninism." Terms that are a lot less ideological and more historical in nature are a lot clearer (you don't get people arguing over whether or not Lenin was a ML). I wouldn't classify the ICL as that, simply because they weren't started by Marcy, but they came from the same response of Trotskyism of "oh shit the world really isn't conforming to our predictions."

[daft punk]

Just because someone isn't an annoying sectarian asshole like you

Talking about yourself again?




Yeah, I like to learn everything through wikipedia too :rolleyes:

That would be stupid, obviously. But to say everything wiki says is wrong would be even more stupid.



The WWP is a trotskyist party but they don't make it a big deal. We read Trotsky, we talk about his theories, we try to apply his theories. We don't worship the guy though and we don't really go around calling ourselves trotskyists for the most part because that is pointless. Just because someone isn't an annoying sectarian asshole like you doesn't mean they aren't "trotskyists".

Basically all your whole copy and paste said was that WWP was formed around trotskyist prinicples and has grown and developed as a party. It doesn't say anything about us no longer identifying with trotskyist theories.


"While the party originally considered itself Trotskyist, is soon began to cease referring to Trotsky in their organ or to carry much, if any, Trotskyist literature. In its first decade the group leaned more to Maoism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism), while still considered itself to have "the kind of political independence that enables revolutionaries to speak up if they see that the cause is being damaged by the policies of the leadership of socialist countries." They supported the Peoples Republic of China on the issues of the 1959 Tibetan uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising) and the Sino-Indian Border War of 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War), and endorsed both the Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward) and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Proletarian_Cultural_Revolution), but criticized their characterization of the USSR as social imperialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-imperialism), fearing that it would lead to Sino-American reproachment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_relations).[9] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-8) The party was particularly attracted to Lin Biao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Biao), praising the inclusion of him in the preamble to the 1969 Chinese Constitution.[10] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-9) They felt that the disappearance of Lin and his associates mark "the end of an entire stage of the Cultural Revolution." They grew increasingly critical of Communist China after 1971, especially their closer relations to the west and supported the "radical faction" within China that opposed this course. After the fall of the Gang of Four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four) in 1976 they considered the Chinese leaders "reaction" and "attacking the revolutionary domestic achievements of the Mao era". By the mid 1980s the only trace of Trotskyist ideology still espoused by the WWP was the idea of the USSR and other Communist controlled countries as degenerated workers' states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state) who had to be defended against imperialism even if their leaderships needed to be criticized.[11] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party#cite_note-10) Ideologically, the WWP is orthodox Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist)."

I learned to read in the 1960s. When are you going to?







Before you try to start classifying parties based on copy&pasting wikipedia articles why don't you sit down with some party members and talk?



I have debated loads with Kurt on another site. As far as I am concerned he is a Stalinist or Stalinist-lite. Manic Experession is a Stalinist. Not sure about Rusty Shackleford, pretty sure he is. It does seem a bit of a mix, a mix of two unmixable things, but more Stalin than Trotsky.

Anyway, make your points quickly, you never know when you are gonna go on ignore. It could be tomorrow.

[manic expression]

I learned to read in the 1960s.
Ah, so that's why daft punk speaks so glowingly of the Shah of Iran. :laugh:


I have debated loads with Kurt on another site. As far as I am concerned he is a Stalinist or Stalinist-lite. Manic Experession is a Stalinist. Not sure about Rusty Shackleford, pretty sure he is. It does seem a bit of a mix, a mix of two unmixable things, but more Stalin than Trotsky.
In other words, you only play dress-up leftist on the internet. Cute.


Anyway, make your points quickly, you never know when you are gonna go on ignore. It could be tomorrow.
Intellectual cowardice has never been funnier.

[gorillafuck]

WWP is trotskyistno it's not.


Basically all your whole copy and paste said was that WWP was formed around trotskyist prinicples and has grown and developed as a party. It doesn't say anything about us no longer identifying with trotskyist theories.except your party isn't really trotskyist. even if it adheres to the idea that the USSR was degenerated, it really doesn't show through in the parties actual positions.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/1994/sm940721.html

is this the WWP's trotskyism in action?

[daft punk]

roflmaopmsl

http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/17/tiananmen-which-side-are-you-on

[Omsk]

Daft Punk what do you mean with,"no links" ? The quotes come from various books by professional and contemporary historians and they come from some of the books I actually own,but you would not understand that,because your view of historical debates is posting useless things from Trotsky,and some Trotskyists groups,which are of course,not legitimate.But,because you insulted me,and dismissed my quite long post which alongside quotes,I wrote,as "shit posting" I will also ignore your point,because iv already saw these arguments,and they have absolutely nothing to do with what I posted,for an example,what do these supposed 10.000 enemies of the people have to do with the Moscow trials?Because the quote was focused on the trials,and not the various events which happened after the trials.Your other comments are ignorable,and I will not respond to them until you manage to draw up some adequate responses.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

WWP was a Stalinophilic split from the SWP in 1958, I believe. Not a very good beginning, your first defining act as a tendency being supporting the Soviet Union's crushing of a political revolution against the bureaucracy in Hungary. I would argue that at that moment your group defined itself as being not Trotskyist. Hungary is the clearest example of what political revolution for socialism against the Stalinists would look like. The workers in Hungary were calling for "socialism without bureaucrats" very different than Solidarnosc, for example. One might characterize the WWP and PSL as occupying a very strange and extremely narrow middle ground between Trotskyism and Stalinism. Why they would want to be there escapes me. As they pretty much support anything the Stalinist bureaucracies do -- this is not Trotskyism.

[Rafiq]

So I was wrong about the flame war...

[Leftsolidarity]

I have debated loads with Kurt on another site. As far as I am concerned he is a Stalinist or Stalinist-lite. Manic Experession is a Stalinist. Not sure about Rusty Shackleford, pretty sure he is. It does seem a bit of a mix, a mix of two unmixable things, but more Stalin than Trotsky.

Anyway, make your points quickly, you never know when you are gonna go on ignore. It could be tomorrow.

So you've never sat down or actually MET any members? No? I thought so. You seem to be talking from pretty far in your asshole.

You call everyone&everything you don't like a Stalinist. You are fucking ridiculous. Communism doesn't boil down to Stalin vs. Trotsky.

I invite you to put me on ignore. I'll only miss the lolz I get from your cries of "StALInIsTs!!1!!!111!!!"

[Leftsolidarity]

no it's not.

except your party isn't really trotskyist. even if it adheres to the idea that the USSR was degenerated, it really doesn't show through in the parties actual positions.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/1994/sm940721.html

is this the WWP's trotskyism in action?

Like I've said but maybe I didn't really get across well. The WWP formed as a Trotskyist party. It is still in the "trotskyist camp", so to speak, even if it has developed some different views or tactics.

I can tell you as a newer member who actually just met with some of the biggest party members (including the leader of the party), Trotskyism is a foundation and they always talk about it. I'm supposed to read some of Trotsky's literature aswell.

[Q]

http://www.workers.org/marcy/1994/sm940721.html

is this the WWP's trotskyism in action?

To be fair, I've seen similar positions among Trotskyist circles:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/migration/img_up/up_3/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_37123_1.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

To be fair, I've seen similar positions among Trotskyist circles:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/migration/img_up/up_3/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_37123_1.jpg
Yeah Spartacist, WWP, PSL, IG and so on defend deformed workers states. I don't understand why people are so concerned on who is Trotskyist and who isn't. It doesn't determine whether or not your politics are good or useful.

[Crux]

Most of the original bolsheviks leaders obviously joined up with the nazi's and japan to murder stalin. Seems legit.

[gorillafuck]

Like I've said but maybe I didn't really get across well. The WWP formed as a Trotskyist party. It is still in the "trotskyist camp", so to speak, even if it has developed some different views or tactics.

I can tell you as a newer member who actually just met with some of the biggest party members (including the leader of the party), Trotskyism is a foundation and they always talk about it. I'm supposed to read some of Trotsky's literature aswell.that's the thing. parties in the trotskyist camp leaders don't send letters of support to kim jong il. and the biggest party members? out of curiousity, were they any of the people whose names are attached to this (http://www.workers.org/2011/world/korea_1229/)? trotskyism is also not supportive of the cultural revolution or maoism as an ideology. and yet here (http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samsupp/index.htm) is the workers party's standpoint.

edit: there's a difference between "defending" deformed workers states from an orthodox trotskyist point of view (regardless of whether or not its pointless), and vocally supporting their leaders and ruling ideologies.

[Kyu Six]

I

Oh comrade Omsk, where do you find all of this stuff? But the above quote really does summarize your view, Millions weren't killed? Just a few hundred thousand party members were lined up and shot? What's the big deal, then? For Pete's sake!:glare:

And apparently, it wasn't enough. As soon as Stalin died, the remaining traitors came out of the woodwork and, led by Khrushchev, began to dismantle the socialist state.

[Kyu Six]

No mention of 10,000 Trotskyists sent to just one prison camp and then shot.


Trotsky was collaborating with Nazi Germany, attempting to kill Stalin, and actively sabotaging Soviet industry. If their allegiances were to Trotsky, they were traitors, plain and simple, and deserved to be shot.

[The Jay]

Trotsky was collaborating with Nazi Germany, attempting to kill Stalin, and actively sabotaging Soviet industry. If their allegiances were to Trotsky, they were traitors, plain and simple, and deserved to be shot.

You smell like a troll, are you a troll?

[Kyu Six]

WWP was a Stalinophilic split from the SWP in 1958, I believe. Not a very good beginning, your first defining act as a tendency being supporting the Soviet Union's crushing of a political revolution against the bureaucracy in Hungary. I would argue that at that moment your group defined itself as being not Trotskyist. Hungary is the clearest example of what political revolution for socialism against the Stalinists would look like. The workers in Hungary were calling for "socialism without bureaucrats" very different than Solidarnosc, for example. One might characterize the WWP and PSL as occupying a very strange and extremely narrow middle ground between Trotskyism and Stalinism. Why they would want to be there escapes me. As they pretty much support anything the Stalinist bureaucracies do -- this is not Trotskyism.

The rise of the Soviet bureaucracy happened after Stalin's death, as did the Soviet intervention in Hungary. These events should properly be laid at the feet of Khrushchev, and not Stalin.

[Kassad]

Like I've said but maybe I didn't really get across well. The WWP formed as a Trotskyist party. It is still in the "trotskyist camp", so to speak, even if it has developed some different views or tactics.

I can tell you as a newer member who actually just met with some of the biggest party members (including the leader of the party), Trotskyism is a foundation and they always talk about it. I'm supposed to read some of Trotsky's literature aswell.

It was never formed as a Trotskyist party. Marcy and his supporters never proclaimed an interesting in forging a section of the Fourth International or viewing workers' states as deformed. WWP and PSL view China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam as workers' states. They don't use the term deformed because it would only be paying a service to bourgeois slander.

I'd encourage you to read more about the party historically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they'll have you read some snippets of In Defense of Marxism. Your education in the party will likely not include another word of Trotsky.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'd encourage you to read more about the party historically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they'll have you read some snippets of In Defense of Marxism. Your education in the party will likely not include another word of Trotsky.

I don't have the list in front of me at the moment but I know there are a few. If not "officially" on the list they are heavily suggested. The one on Transitional Programs is stressed a lot.

Good chat all. Disagreements I guess but so be it. I'm unfollowing this thread now because I think this is starting to get trolled and I'm on a lot of different threads. If you want to keep discussing this PM me I guess. (I don't see why you would though)

[gorillafuck]

I mean, we're directing you to your parties documents and statements dude. you should take that a bit seriously if you want to be seriously involved. if you've been made to believe its a trotskyist party then you've been seriously misled.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

All Marcyites are really messed up. As much as I dislike Stalinism, I don't really think it's fair to take them as an example of Marxism-Leninism. They are more of your garden variety, stereotypical "Brezhnevites". Marcyism is it's own beast, one that should be treated as such. For example, the WWP, PSL, and ICL are all Marcyites, and they have more in common with each other than the tendencies which they supposedly adhere to(Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism).

No, the ICL are not Marcyites. Marcy went off on his own in '58 splitting with the SWP and with Trotskyism. They became an odd Stalinophilic grouping. At the time the SWP's prospects were pretty poor -- so the Marcyites extended the idea of military defense of the deformed workers states to effectively include political support for the bureaucracies of those states. In the Sixties, they ran around enthusing over Mao and the Red Guards and various third world nationalist movements. The ICL (and IBT and IG and Revolutionary Regroupment) agree on some issues with the WWP the certainly do not on others.

For example, the ICL supported the Hungarian uprising against the Stalinists (okay it is retroactive) Marcy split over that issue. The ICL opposed the Chinese crackdown on the protest movements which the Marcyites applauded. But there would be some agreement about the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and about the counter-revolutionary nature of Solidarnosc. But really, the Marcyites gave up a key piece of Trotskyism - for political revolutions in the deformed workers states.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

no it's not.

except your party isn't really trotskyist. even if it adheres to the idea that the USSR was degenerated, it really doesn't show through in the parties actual positions.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/1994/sm940721.html

is this the WWP's trotskyism in action?
With regard to the article, oh YUCK. That's even worse than I remembered from the WWP. Fawning praise to that Stalinist caricature? Okay, I'll defend the gains of the Korean deformed workers state, but for fucks sake no Trotskyist in their right mind would praise that old Stalinist shit.

[Crux]

Trotsky was collaborating with Nazi Germany, attempting to kill Stalin, and actively sabotaging Soviet industry. If their allegiances were to Trotsky, they were traitors, plain and simple, and deserved to be shot.
Preach it, brother. The komosol youth who shouted long live trotsky before they were executed surely showed their allegiance to fascism. Because what is trotskyism after all but fascism in disguise? The gigantic conspiracy against the Gardener of Human Happiness needed to be quelled. Why surely it must have been massive when most all of the old leaders of the bolshevik party and the october revolution suddenly allied with fascism to kill the great leader, the man of steel.

No, comrade, were it not for the river of blood between my marxism and your "marxism-leninism" this would be farce and not tragedy.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk what do you mean with,"no links" ? The quotes come from various books by professional and contemporary historians and they come from some of the books I actually own,but you would not understand that,because your view of historical debates is posting useless things from Trotsky,and some Trotskyists groups,which are of course,not legitimate.But,because you insulted me,and dismissed my quite long post which alongside quotes,I wrote,as "shit posting" I will also ignore your point,because iv already saw these arguments,and they have absolutely nothing to do with what I posted,for an example,what do these supposed 10.000 enemies of the people have to do with the Moscow trials?Because the quote was focused on the trials,and not the various events which happened after the trials.Your other comments are ignorable,and I will not respond to them until you manage to draw up some adequate responses.

I appreciate that not every quote can have a direct link, but you Stalinists never post links, not even for stuff from Lenin etc which is on MIA. This gets very annoying as we can't read the context and so on. It also usually means you havent read the context either. It's like you have this big Stalinist text file with itemised subjects and all you do is paste the relevant page.

Why are you trying to dismiss the purges as if they never happened? Of course they are relevant to the trials.

Yes you did put a bit of your own wording in between the pastes so I will address that then, and even you pastes:



This is a complicated question,and cant be adressed with a simplistic and ignorant view on things,because the issue of the pressance of various anti-Soviet groups is not doubtful,and should not be a debateable topic,because,subversives,sure did exist.
Omsk, turn your spell check on in your browser. Ok, what do you mean by anti-Soviet? The Trotskyists were working to save the USSR so cannot be called anti-Soviet. I can prove this in several ways. For instance Leopold Trepper- risked his life to provide info on when the Nazis were gonna attack. Trotsky, said that the USSR must be defended when the war broke out. And these two things were after the purges. Trotsky had only given up on the Comintern in 1933 after the Nazis came to power thanks to the Comintern. He knew they were a dead loss when they refused to even admit the mistake or discuss it.




However,while some people exaggerte the number of subversives and terrorists,some people also exaggerate the number of people who were persecuted on various grounds.Many serious historians and knowledgable figures note of this.

support these claims



To the rest of the world it seemed at the time that Russia was enveloped in a smothering atmosphere of plots, murders, and purges. Actually this was a superficial view since, although the rest of the world was morbidly interested in the trials to the exclusion of anything else about Russia, only a tiny percentage of the population was involved and the same years which saw the treason trials saw some of the greatest triumphs of Soviet planning. While the screws tightened on a tiny minority the majority of Soviet people were enjoying greater prosperity and greater freedom.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 30


Well, let's say a million were purged from the CP and a million were executed from the general population, so these two millions overlap but are not identical. That may be a small percentage of the population but it is hardly insignificant. To shoot a million people is a big thing.





It was easy, reading our newspapers, to believe that the whole of Russia was in the throes of trials and executions. This was not a true picture. Russia was building during this period--industrializing, rearming, educating--faster perhaps that any other country.
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 31

see above


Reading this tedious catalog of never-ending arrests and trials, we are bound to imagine that the country's state of mind in that terrible year 1937 was one of deep depression. Not a bit of it! The great majority of the population woke up happily to the relentless blare of loudspeakers, sped eagerly to work, participated enthusiastically in the daily public meetings at which their enemies were anathematized, and read skimpy newspaper reports of the trials which showed how very reliable the secret police were.
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 386


Happy days. What is the point of posting meaningless propaganda like this?

Everyone was scared of getting purged and shot. It is disgusting that you can post this, which sounds just like Nazi propaganda, the joyous population denouncing the evil Jews/communists.


In the so called Moscow trials 55 people got capital punishment and 7 imprisonment. Most of those prosecuted were persons in high positions in the party, the state apparatus and the army accused of treason, espionage, terrorism, sabotage, corruption or collaboration with the enemy, Nazi Germany. The Moscow trials were followed by trials in other parts of the country against companions of the traitors tried in Moscow, and hundreds of saboteurs, spies and all kinds of traitors were condemned to prison or death. The trials were public except trials against military personnel, which were held behind closed doors because of the secrecy in the defence preparations against Nazi Germany. In Moscow the trials were monitored by the international press and the accredited diplomatic corps, for which seats were reserved in the court room.
Sousa, Mario. The Class Struggle During the Thirties in the Soviet Union, 2001.


As I say, very misleading and largely irrelevant




Another example is the fact that many historians,even those with hard anti-Stalin views,follow the notion that the number of those who were persecuted on some grounds,were simply too high.

(For the anti-Stalin view)

...For one thing, the archival evidence from the secret police rejects the astronomically high estimates often given for the number of terror victims.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. xiv

Getty is an anti-Satlinist? I thought he was a sympathiser. We have the secret police archive figures. They are nearly a million. Obviously the reality was greater to some degree.






In any event, the data available at this point make it clear that the number shot in the two worst purge years [1937-38] was more likely in the hundreds of thousands than in the millions.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 591

Let's call it a million for round figures. Let's say only 10,000 were left Opposition, although I'm sure it was a lot higher. Let's say a million were purged from the CP but only some were shot and some were later re-admitted. The fact is that everyone lived in terror, even those doing the killing, who were later shot by Stalin. see here
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009
"No one was immune from the reach of the NKVD, Stalin’s secret police. Trepper describes how; “at night in our university…headlights would pierce the darkness… “They’re here! They’re here! When we heard that cry a wave of anxiety would run through the dormitories…stomachs knotted in insane terror, we would watch for the cars of the KNVD to stop… “They’re coming.” The noise got louder…shouts doors slamming. They went by without stopping. But what about tomorrow?”"
"
Trepper was not alone in enduring the terror; “yet we went along sick at heart, but passive, caught up in machinery we had set in motion…all those who did not rise up against the Stalinist machine are responsible, collectively responsible. I am no exception to this verdict.”
Like most he was too lost to counter Stalin's assault on the party. A member from only the late 1920s onwards, he had neither the training, or experience to understand the political root of the degeneration of the revolution; “But who did protest…The Trotskyites can lay claim to that honour…let them not forget, however, that they had the enormous advantage over us of having a coherent political system capable of replacing Stalinism….they did not “confess,” for they knew that their confession would serve neither the party nor socialism.”"
This was a hero who risked his life to save the USSR. I would like your comments on this.






And this is from Molotov,(Some of you may dissagree with this,but i also provided an anti-Stalin position.)

The charge against me [Molotov] is the same: abuse of power. The report written by that commission member...says that 1,370,000 arrests were made in the 1930s. That's too many. I responded that the figures should be thoroughly reviewed and that unwarranted arrests did occur, but that we couldn't have survived without resorting to stern measures.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 285


As I say, Stalin had Molotov's wife sent to the gulag even though Molotov was his best buddy. Her crime was meeting some Jewish delegates.

Stalin's wife topped herself after seeing her mates disappear one by one.




And on the question of the wreckers,while it can be said that there have been subversive and acts of sabotage,sometimes,the cause of the problems was the incompetence. It is noted in this particular line:
But gradually a real "wrecker" psychosis has grown up amongst the people. They have come to interpret everything that goes wrong as sabotage, whilst most certainly a great part of the defects are traceable to incompetence pure and simple.
Feuchtwanger, Lion. Moscow, 1937. New York: The Viking Press, 1937, p. 38



This paste ruins your own argument. Mistakes and incompetencies were put down to Trotskyists.

Was Trepper a wrecker for warning of the German invasion? He got jailed when he returned.




For an exmple,there was critical wrecking in Magnitogorsk.


details?




All in all,there is a fact that cant be denied,and that is the fundamentally correct stance that the USSR was 'under imperialist siege' (Siege can be defined in a number of ways) and that the threath of a spy ring or a subversive stance of the home elements was indeed possible,and in order with reality,and the present state of afairs.It would be unrational to simply discard all ideas of a possible wrecking process,which in my opinion,certainly did happen in the Soviet Union,the question is,at what extent?In my opinion,it certainly reached quite worrying sizes.


all this talk of wrecking, show me evidence that Trots planned it and evidence that they did it.

[daft punk]

Omsk, can I ask you, have you read any of the Red Book on the Moscow Trials by Leon Sedov? Sedov was Trotsky's son, murdered in Paris by Stalin's agents.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/sedov.jpg

Leon Sedov

The Red Book

On the Moscow Trials


http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/index.htm

Take a read of this extract:

WHEN EXACTLY WAS THE “UNIFIED CENTER” CREATED AND WHEN DID IT FUNCTION?



"Here is what the indictment says: “At the end of 1932 the unification of the Trotskyist and Zinovievist groups took place and they organized a unified center ...”
Organized at the end of 1932, this center, according to the indictment, carried on terrorist activity for almost four years: “from 1932 to 1936.” It is the end of 1932 which is considered the moment—and that is repeated dozens of times during the trial—when the Zinovievists on the one hand, and the so-called “Trotskyists” (Smirnov and others), on the other hand, supposedly obeyed Trotsky’s instructions and created the Unified Center, “which gave itself the task of executing a series of terrorist acts.”
What happened next? Here is what a number of the defendants and Bakaev in particular, say: “In the autumn of 1932, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been expelled from the party ... it was decided to temporarily suspend the terrorist activity. In the autumn of 1934 it was taken up again.” Reingold also says: “In our terrorist activity ... between the autumn of 1932 and the summer of 1933 there was a break, beginning with the autumn of 1932.” The inconsistencies concern only the time when this activity was resumed. It thus turns out that the center which was formed at the end of 1932 had already ceased its activity for a while ... before its formation, in the autumn of 1932. [36] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/ch08.htm#n36)
In reality, to demonstrate that the center (if it had ever existed) could not do otherwise than cease its activity in the autumn of 1932, we do not need this testimony. The fact is that in the autumn of 1932 (in October) Zinoviev and Kamenev were exiled from Moscow, and in the winter(on January 1, 1933) Smirnov was arrested. Mrachkovsky was also outside Moscow; he was, according to the information available at that time, deported, as were Ter-Vaganian and a number of other former Oppositionists. We can see that from the autumn of 1932 and until at least the summer of 1933 (the return of Zinoviev and Kamenev from exile), the center could not in fact exist.
This does not stop Dreitzer from stating that in the spring of 1933 he received “instructions from the Trotskyist-Zinovievist center to hasten the terrorist acts against the leadership of the Communist party in the USSR.” According to Dreitzer, consequently, it turns out that, just in the period in which the center “had ceased its activity,” it demanded that he “hasten” the preparation of the terrorist acts.
In this jumble of absurdities, it is difficult to understand anything at all! The center is organized and dissolved all at once, ceases its activity and at the same time “hastens” it.
There is no less confusion tied to the question of exactly when the center finally “resumed” its mysterious activity. Bakaev, who answers this question the most precisely, says: “In the autumn of 1934,” that is, two years later. This date is not chosen accidentally. It must be a preparation for the “confession” of Kirov’s assassination. If we believe Bakaev’s testimony, the only period in which the center existed and involved itself in terrorist activity was the second half, and, in particular, the autumn of 1934, that is, a period of only a few months. If we accept the version of the other defendants (Pikel, Reingold, Zinoviev, Kamenev), the center existed and acted from the summer or autumn of 1933 to the end of 1934, that is, one year and a half at the very most. Meanwhile, the indictment and the verdict say that the center existed from 1932 to 1936. In order to demonstrate that this statement is not unfounded, Vyshinsky asks Zinoviev the following question: “For how long did it (the center) function?” Zinoviev answers: “In fact, until 1936.” [37] (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/ch08.htm#n37) This testimony of Zinoviev’s is at least strange, since he himself, like Evdokimov, Bakaev, and Kamenev had been in prison since December 1934. (Since the end of 1934, none of the members of the center had been in Moscow.) Obviously, from the end of 1934 to 1936 they engaged in terrorist activity ... in prison. Another member of the center, Mrachkovsky, during the four years of his “terrorist activity” was in Moscow only twice, in 1932 and in 1934, and even these were only short visits. How he was able, under these conditions, to work actively in the center is incomprehensible.
Besides this, one of the members of the center, I.N. Smirnov, never left prison after January 1, 1933, that is, for more than three and one half years. One wonders what role I.N. Smirnov could have played in the activity of the center since he was arrested in the period when this center had just been organized, and how, in particular, he could have taken an active part in Kirov’s assassination when he was in prison, without interruption, for the two years which preceded the assassination. But the verdict says in black and white — and Smirnov was shot in accordance with this verdict—that he is accused of “having organized and carried out on December 1, 1934 ... the assassination of S.M. Kirov.” Is this not a “model trial”?
Vyshinsky, it is true, also has a reply to that. Regarding the terrorist directives which Dreitzer was supposed to have received (in 1934), that is, when Smirnov had already been in prison for a long time, the prosecutor Vyshinsky says: “I am deeply (!) convinced (!!) that you knew about it (the terrorist directive) even while you were being held in the political isolator.” The material proofs are replaced by false “confessions” and mind-reading."


see how in just one tiny bit of his book Sedov destroys Stalin's lies.

Also of course there is the Dewey commission and the Stalin School of Falsification

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rPAFsSBXL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg

Leon Trotsky

The Stalin School of Falsification

(1937)

The Stalin School of Falsification was translated by Max Shachtman in 1937 for Pioneer Publishers.
This transcription for the World Wide Web was made from this same edition.
Max Shachtman’s notes are also from the original edition.
Transcribed for the Trotsky Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm), now a sub-archive of the Marxists’ Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/index.htm) by David Walters (http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/walters.htm) in 1995; revised in 1996 and 2003.
Proofread by Einde O’Callaghan in March 2007.
1. Introduction by Max Shactman (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf01.htm)
2. Foreword by Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf02.htm)
3. Foreword to the Russian Edition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf03.htm)
4. Letter to the Bureau of Party History (Part I) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf04.htm)
5. Letter to the Bureau of Party History (Part II) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf05.htm)
6. Letter to the Bureau of Party History (Part III) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf06.htm)
7. Some Documents Relating to The Origin of the Legend of “Trotskyism” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf07.htm)
8. The Lost Document (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf08.htm)
9. Two Speeches at the Session of the Central Control Commission (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf09.htm)
10. The War Danger – The Defense Policy and the Opposition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf10.htm)
11. A Contribution to the Political Biography of Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf11.htm)
12. How the October Insurrection Actually Took Place (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf12.htm)
13. Appendix: Stalin and the Red Army by N. Markin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf13.htm)
14. The March 1917 Party Conference (Part I) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf14.htm)
15. The March 1917 Party Conference (Part II) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf15.htm)


Dewey Commission:

THE CASE OF

Leon Trotsky

Report of Hearings on the Charges Made Against Him
in the Moscow Trials

by the
Preliminary Commission of Inquiry
into the
Charges Made Against Trotsky
in the
Moscow Trials



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/

Contents
Introduction to the Merit Publishers, 1969 Edition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/intro.htm), by George Novak
FOREWORD (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/forward.htm)
REPORT TO THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/report.htm)
FIRST SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session01.htm)
Opening Statements – Biography of Leon Trotsky – Early revolutionary activity – Revolution of 1905 – Opposition to World War – Sojourn in America – Role in October Revolution, Civil War, Soviet Government – Expulsion from Party – Exile – Activities Abroad – Copenhagen – France – Norway – Arrest
SECOND SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session02.htm)
Mexico – Loss of Citizenship – Family – Writings on Terrorism – Petrograd, Warsaw, Brest-Litovsk – Archives – Danger of Bonapartism – Policy of Comintern – Lenin’s Testament – Vyshinsky’s Charges of Anti-Leninism
THIRD SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session03.htm)
Relations with Lenin – Open Letter to Central Executive Committee – Relations with Defendants – The Troika – Bloc with Zinovev and Kamenev – Expulsion of Opposition – Capitulations – Olberg – Radek
FOURTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session04.htm)
Trotsky’s Attitude Toward Defendants, Zinoviev-Kamenev Trial – Radek – Capitulators – Relations with Defendants – Loyal Opposition – Communications with USSR – Blumkin – Copenhagen – Return – Meeting with Son – Witnesses – Sedov’s Passport – Telegram to Herriot – Hotel Bristol – Danish Press
FIFTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session05.htm)
Testimony of Trotsky’s Secretary on Copenhagen Hotel Bristol – Sound Film to Opposition – Olberg – Romm – Trotsky’s Removal to France – Landing at Cassis – Trip to Saint Palais – Fire – Life in Saint Palais – Bagnères – Barbizon – Discovery – Press Attacks – Romm – Documentary Evidence
SIXTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session06.htm)
Precautions on Trip to France – Documentary Evidence – Romm – Pyatakov – Trotsky’s Life in Norway – Knudsen’s Telegram to Vyshinsky – Norwegian press – Trotsky’s Proposition to Moscow Court – Pyatakov – Certain Defendants
SEVENTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session07.htm)
Soviet Treason Law – Aftenposten on Pyatakov – Hrasche – Ciliga on Confessions – Brobnis – Tsentralnaya Explosion – Industrialization, Five-Year Plan, Collectivization – Soviet Statistics – Trotsky’s Warnings – Attitude on Terror – Kirov Assassination – Communications with USSR
EIGHTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session08.htm)
Terroristic Tendencies Among the Youth – The Question of Conspiracy – Attitude Toward Change of Soviet Régime – Omission of Molotov from List of Victims – Defense of USSR – Clemenceau Thesis – Fourth International – Spain – Position in Case of Attack on USSR
NINTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session09.htm)
Stalinist Policy in Spain – Foreign Policy of Lenin and Trotsky – Soviet Union in a Capitalistic World – War and Socialism – Attitude toward Germany and Japan – Alliance of USSR with Capitalist Countries – Lenin’s Trip Through Germany – Polish War – Struggle Between Left Opposition and Stalinists – Theft of Archives – Finances – General Denial of Charges.
TENTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session10.htm)
History of Bolshevik Party – Governing Bodies – Membership in 1919 – Constitution of Soviet Union – Council of People’s Commissars – Members in 1919 – The Soviets – Relations Between Party and Government – Democratic Centralism – Dictatorship of the Proletariat – New Constitution – The Socialist Revolution – The Question of Propaganda – Revolutionary, Individual and Thermidorean Terror – The Hearst Press.
ELEVENTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session11.htm)
Bureaucracy and Fascist Alliances – Terrorism – United Front and Popular Front – Party Purges – Sabotage – Trotskyites in Siberia – Muralov’s Confession – Method of Securing Confessions – Removal of Stalin – Accusations in First Trial – Soviet Law on Evidence – Pyatakov’s Alleged Flight – Socialism in One Country – Relations with Lenin – Distortion of Revolutionary History – Borodin in Mexico – Communist International.
TWELTH SESSION (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session12.htm)
Demand for Investigation of Mr. Beals’ Question – Mr. Beals’ Resignation – Statement of Chairman – Statement of Counsel for Witness – Letter from Socialist Party – Bolshevik Discipline – Slogans of the Opposition – Phases of Party Struggle – Constructive Work – The Menshevik Trials – Lenin’s Testament – Left Opposition – International Revolution – Dictatorship of the Secretariat.
THIRTEENTH SESSION
Part I (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session13_a.htm)
Part II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session13_b.htm)
Part III (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session13_c.htm)
Closing Speech of Counsel for Witness – Questions of Mexican Labor Organizations – Statement of Counsel for Commission – Trotsky’s final argument: Why Is an Investigation Necessary? – Is the Investigation Politically Admissible? – The Opinion of Professor Charles A. Beard – A “Purely Juridical” Examination – Autobiography – My “Juridical” Situation – Three Categories of Proofs – The Mathematical Series of Frame-ups – The Political Basis of the Accusation: Terrorism – The Kirov Assassination – Who Drew Up the List of “Victims” of the Terror? (The Molotov “Affair”) – The Political Basis of the Accusation: “Sabotage” – The Political Basis of the Accusation: The Alliance with Hitler and the Mikado – Copenhagen – Radek – Vladimir Romm, “Witness” – Pyatakov’s Flight to Norway – What Has Been Refuted in the Last Trial? – The Prosecutor-Falsifier – The Theory of “Camouflage” – Why and Wherefore These Trials?
APPENDICES (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/append.htm)
In re: Copenhagen – Supplementary Statement by Albert M. Glotzer – Factual Corrections – Correspondence – Why and Wherefore These Trials?

[manic expression]

Getty is an anti-Satlinist? I thought he was a sympathiser.
Then you're a clueless hack, because he's not. Getty called Stalin "a monster" in his writings.

More lies and BS from daft punk.

[daft punk]

You seem to post this in every single thread.

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Leftsolidarity For This Useless Shit Post: Bostana (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=57598), Comrade Commistar (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=61895), Exoprism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=38088), Khalid (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29640), Neoprime (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=62036), Paulappaul (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29630), Q (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=12488)


Because i want to remind the Stalinists how they ran away when challenged. I will do it on here, and let's see what happens.

In the meantime, post relevant stuff on topic please.










As for the WWP/PSL, it is a derail, nobody wants to hear stuff about them, especially on this thread. Please stick to the topic and stop spamming the thread with useless shit.

Consider this a warning. You will be put on ignore.

[Omsk]

I appreciate that not every quote can have a direct link, but you Stalinists never post links, not even for stuff from Lenin etc which is on MIA.

Some of it is actually not from the internet,and i really dont understand your fascination with the 'context' the context is the purges,the events which happened during the period of the political crysis and the conflict between the various groups that wanted the main power.


Why are you trying to dismiss the purges as if they never happened? Of course they are relevant to the trials.


I am not,it's just that it's pointless to mention the supposed number of people who were persecuted in relation to the people who were arrested during and as a result of the Moscow trials.And i am of course,not trying to 'dismiss' the purges as if they never happened.
I have a related question: Do you think Stalin ordered Kirov to be executed?


Omsk, turn your spell check on in your browser. Ok, what do you mean by anti-Soviet? The Trotskyists were working to save the USSR so cannot be called anti-Soviet. I can prove this in several ways. For instance Leopold Trepper- risked his life to provide info on when the Nazis were gonna attack. Trotsky, said that the USSR must be defended when the war broke out. And these two things were after the purges. Trotsky had only given up on the Comintern in 1933 after the Nazis came to power thanks to the Comintern. He knew they were a dead loss when they refused to even admit the mistake or discuss it.



This is ideological nonsense that can't count as proper historical argumentation,sorry to be blunt.The Trotskyists were working against the communist party,and against the vanguard party of the proletariat,and their aim was to sieze the Soviet power,this,you simply can't denny,or,in an alternative,you could try,but i won't take notice of such attempts,because this story might pass to some confused and ill-informed 'ultra-leftists' or various 'anti-ML's',but not to me.


support these claims

What?Did you even read my post,because,from this,it's obvious you didn't,if you did,you would notice that i posted several quotes from the books and works of various historians,who noted that the figures of the number of people persecuted are simply false and exaggerated.


Well, let's say a million were purged from the CP and a million were executed from the general population, so these two millions overlap but are not identical. That may be a small percentage of the population but it is hardly insignificant. To shoot a million people is a big thing.


During what?The purges were not a single event which happened in a number of days,and when you were supposed to say in which process the exact number of people died,you put a full stop.The end.That's it.No proof,no supporting evidence,no argument.Unless you want me to really answer your posts,you need to present a full view of your claims,and some information related to it.
This quote can help you see the main percentage of the party members who were purged.

Communist Party membership involved both special obligations and access to special benefits such as jobs (reserved for politically reliable people), as well as a certain prestige. As a result many people secured and maintained membership in the Party for other reasons than agreement with the Party's goals and political activism; many people even secured Party cards illlegally.... The periodic purges (1919, 1921, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1937) were all designed to deal with this problem and, in the words of Party instructions, were directed to ensure 'iron proletarian discipline in the Party and to cleanse the Party's ranks of all unreliable, unstable, and hanger-on elements. ‘In the 1919 're-registration' 10-15% of the Party's total membership lost their Party cards; in the 1921 Party purge 25%; in the 1929 purge, 11% (25 percent of whom were reinstated after appeals); in the 1933 chistka 17% were expelled; in the 1935 proverka 9%; and in the famous 1937 Ezhovshchina again about 9% (the 1935 and 1937 purges were the smallest in terms of numbers affected).
The decree setting up the rules of the 1933 validation of Party members specified that all Party members must present themselves before open proceedings (attended by both Party and non-Party members), give an account of the facts of their lives, explain how they fulfilled Party tasks, and discuss the efforts made to raise their 'ideological and theoretical level.' Each member was then questioned by the validation commissioners and by rank and file Party and non-Party members.
Szymanski, Albert. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books, 1984, p. 230

A lot of people were also let back in the party: (As noted by the historian Getty.)


Even before the 1938 Plenum, there were 53,700 appeals against expulsions. In August 1938, there were 101,233 appeals. At that time, out of a total of 154,933 appeals, the Party committees had already examined 85,273, of which 54 per cent were readmitted.
J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 190.

It [Pravda] noted that, before the January 1938 plenum, there had been 53,700 appeals under consideration. Since the plenum, an additional 101,233 had been submitted, making a total of 154,933. Of these, party committees had so far examined 85,273, and 54 percent (46,047) of those appealing had been readmitted.
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 190



Happy days. What is the point of posting meaningless propaganda like this?

Everyone was scared of getting purged and shot.


Even those who didn't do anything,and were basically non-political?


As I say, very misleading and largely irrelevant

Too bad it's not.



Getty is an anti-Satlinist? I thought he was a sympathiser


Well if you bothered to read some of his works you would know,this is not about politics,this is all about being unimformed.



This was a hero who risked his life to save the USSR. I would like your comments on this.




Why do you constantly mention him,it's pointless actually,in the same logic,Stalin also risked his life to save the USSR when he visited the front.


As I say, Stalin had Molotov's wife sent to the gulag even though Molotov was his best buddy. Her crime was meeting some Jewish delegates.


Completely irrelevant.


Stalin's wife topped herself after seeing her mates disappear one by one.



Of yes?I want proof.


This paste ruins your own argument. Mistakes and incompetencies were put down to Trotskyists.


Absolutely not.There were mistakes and faulty works from some of the people assigned with the various everyday tasks and some more important,but it is absurd to say that the mistakes of the objectively non - political people is somehow entirey atributed to the Trotskyists,it simply isn't true.

And you do realize no serious historian or even a person interested in history would seriously look at a book writte by Trotsky's son,or a book written by Trotsky himself.

[daft punk]

Then you're a clueless hack, because he's not. Getty called Stalin "a monster" in his writings.

More lies and BS from daft punk.


Ok I took a peek. So shoot me. Can you please not reply to my posts when on ignore?

You are on ignore for you own good in fact. Anyway, for some reason i peeked at this so now I suppose i have to reply to it.

"He is something of a controversial figure in the field of Soviet studies, as he was one of the first to put forth the thesis that the Great Purge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) was not ordered by Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) and that it also had other advocates and participants. The notion that Stalin did not plan the purges is disputed by other scholars.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Arch_Getty#cite_note-1)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Arch_Getty

" J Arch Getty proves in his “Origins of the great purges” (1985) that there were an actual Trotskyite conspiracy against the Stalin regime."

http://www.adjunkten.com/Historical%20interpretations%20of%20Stalinism.htm

"Once again J Arch Getty and O Naumov are going to rattle cages about the great purges and the misrepresentation of Stalin and the Bolsheviks during the period of 1930-1939. Once more the archives demonstrate that Stalin was correct and the anti-communist elements and fifth column - from Trotsky to Khrushchev - were wrong."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3EPVNKI1OS3CT

I not that you didnt provide an actual quote.

Now, please keep quiet or post something of substance like an actual quote or some actual facts.

[Omsk]

You took a peak some five minutes ago when you read his name.If you actually read his works,you would note that he is anti-Stalin.Which is a bit obvious too.And the fact that you read wikipedia artices,and an user-review on a website as an adequate source on the critic of the historians work,is..well,i don't know quite what to say.

[manic expression]

Ok I took a peek.
As we can clearly see, nothing you say has any merit, not even your vaunted "I'm too scared to debate" list. :lol:


You are on ignore for you own good in fact.Wrong, it's because you're an intellectual coward who runs away from arguments.


"He is something of a controversial figure in the field of Soviet studies,OMG RULLY?! I didn't know that! Being controversial doesn't mean he sympathizes with Stalin. Nice try, but you lose, better luck next time.


" J Arch Getty proves in his “Origins of the great purges” (1985) that there were an actual Trotskyite conspiracy against the Stalin regime."Yeah, I might take that seriously if it wasn't a grammatically incorrect statement. Next time you want to find something to support your cheap pro-capitalist hackery, try using something halfway valid.


I not that you didnt provide an actual quote.I note that you haven't read Getty's works, else you would know that it is what he wrote.

But what else can we expect from an intellectual coward like yourself?


Now, please keep quiet or post something of substance like an actual quote or some actual facts.Another nice quote is when you called capitalism a "free" society. :laugh::laugh::laugh: You're so clueless that you outed yourself as a pro-capitalist.

[Amal]

I can't understand why followers of Trotsky here repeat the same words that the "inquiry committee" set by Gorbachev had said. Most probably Gorbachev is also a trotskyist, at least he said in the same tone as the defenders of Trotsky here.

[daft punk]

Some of it is actually not from the internet,and i really dont understand your fascination with the 'context' the context is the purges,the events which happened during the period of the political crysis and the conflict between the various groups that wanted the main power.

Context is everything. A quote out of context can be very misleading.




I am not,it's just that it's pointless to mention the supposed number of people who were persecuted in relation to the people who were arrested during and as a result of the Moscow trials.And i am of course,not trying to 'dismiss' the purges as if they never happened.
I have a related question: Do you think Stalin ordered Kirov to be executed?

No idea. It's not particularly important. It was Stalin's excuse for purges. Also Stalin benefited from his death as he was a challenger for power. Also, Kirov had angered Stalin by refusing to purge the Left Opposition. According to Orlov, yeah, Stalin arranged the assassination. It would certainly make sense, Stalin was the only person to benefit from it. What do you think?






This is ideological nonsense that can't count as proper historical argumentation,sorry to be blunt.The Trotskyists were working against the communist party,and against the vanguard party of the proletariat,and their aim was to sieze the Soviet power,this,you simply can't denny,or,in an alternative,you could try,but i won't take notice of such attempts,because this story might pass to some confused and ill-informed 'ultra-leftists' or various 'anti-ML's',but not to me.

No need to apologise, I like blunt. The Trots aim was to overthrow the Stalinist regime precisely in order to save the USSR. However their method was not a coup, not terrorism, not defeatism, it was Marxism. Remember that M word? It means getting the masses conscious and organised. After 1933, yeah, Trotsky called for a new party. He said it would take years. Stalin purged all the possible recruits he could. Trotsky said that if the masses woke up and organised, Stalin's regime would simply be suspended in mid air.

I would have thought that any attempted coup would be smashed by Stalin, and the only possible victors apart from Stalin would be the army who might move independently.




What?Did you even read my post,because,from this,it's obvious you didn't,if you did,you would notice that i posted several quotes from the books and works of various historians,who noted that the figures of the number of people persecuted are simply false and exaggerated.

I'm not interested in quibbling about numbers. Thousands of Trotskyists were executed on false charges. I want to discuss the charges and the evidence. Stalin carried out a counter-revolution against socialism. I really cant comprehend how you cannot at least admit that is a possibility and do some objective research to find out.

90% of what Stalin said was lies. 99% of what Trotsky said was the truth. Trotsky told a couple of small porkies to save some people. Stalin told nonstop whoppers to smash any chance of uprising from below for genuine socialism.



During what?The purges were not a single event which happened in a number of days,and when you were supposed to say in which process the exact number of people died,you put a full stop.The end.That's it.No proof,no supporting evidence,no argument.Unless you want me to really answer your posts,you need to present a full view of your claims,and some information related to it.
This quote can help you see the main percentage of the party members who were purged.

Communist Party membership involved both special obligations and access to special benefits such as jobs (reserved for politically reliable people), as well as a certain prestige. As a result many people secured and maintained membership in the Party for other reasons than agreement with the Party's goals and political activism; many people even secured Party cards illlegally.... The periodic purges (1919, 1921, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1937) were all designed to deal with this problem and, in the words of Party instructions, were directed to ensure 'iron proletarian discipline in the Party and to cleanse the Party's ranks of all unreliable, unstable, and hanger-on elements. ‘In the 1919 're-registration' 10-15% of the Party's total membership lost their Party cards; in the 1921 Party purge 25%; in the 1929 purge, 11% (25 percent of whom were reinstated after appeals); in the 1933 chistka 17% were expelled; in the 1935 proverka 9%; and in the famous 1937 Ezhovshchina again about 9% (the 1935 and 1937 purges were the smallest in terms of numbers affected).
The decree setting up the rules of the 1933 validation of Party members specified that all Party members must present themselves before open proceedings (attended by both Party and non-Party members), give an account of the facts of their lives, explain how they fulfilled Party tasks, and discuss the efforts made to raise their 'ideological and theoretical level.' Each member was then questioned by the validation commissioners and by rank and file Party and non-Party members.
Szymanski, Albert. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books, 1984, p. 230

A lot of people were also let back in the party: (As noted by the historian Getty.)


Even before the 1938 Plenum, there were 53,700 appeals against expulsions. In August 1938, there were 101,233 appeals. At that time, out of a total of 154,933 appeals, the Party committees had already examined 85,273, of which 54 per cent were readmitted.
J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 190.

It [Pravda] noted that, before the January 1938 plenum, there had been 53,700 appeals under consideration. Since the plenum, an additional 101,233 had been submitted, making a total of 154,933. Of these, party committees had so far examined 85,273, and 54 percent (46,047) of those appealing had been readmitted.
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 190
I'm not really interested in reading loads of figures and bullshit from your mate Getty. Lets just agree that hundreds of thousand were purged and tens of thousands were shot, and those who were shot were mostly the best socialists who stood for Leninism. and please dont mix the purges before 1924 with those after as they were completely different. Lenin killed nobody in his purges, which were to save the revolution. Stalin killed many of those purged and most purged were the best Leninists.



Even those who didn't do anything,and were basically non-political?

please comment directly on my quote from Trepper.








Why do you constantly mention him,it's pointless actually,in the same logic,Stalin also risked his life to save the USSR when he visited the front.


It is not. Read the article I linked to. It is completely different. This guy risked his life day after day, in the period after the purges. In other words, even though he knew the regime was disgustingly corrupt, he still risked his life every day to save the USSR. This destroys the Stalinist lie that people who opposed the regime opposed the USSR in any way. It was he who warned of the German invasion!

Please read the link, it's not long, and it's an important article.




Completely irrelevant.



Of yes?I want proof.

http://thinkagainonline.com/article/?p=537
"Found with her was an angry letter to Stalin and a copy of the anti-Stalin “platform” statement of the Old Bolsheviks. “During those days in the country at large, the mere possession of this document warranted arrest.” Yenukidze was executed in 1937. Stalin was awakened. Doctors arrived. ”There were bruises on her face” and a “five millimeter hole over the heart“. Stalin picked up the pistol. “It was a toy”, he told Molotov, adding strangely, “It was only fired once a year.”"




Absolutely not.There were mistakes and faulty works from some of the people assigned with the various everyday tasks and some more important,but it is absurd to say that the mistakes of the objectively non - political people is somehow entirey atributed to the Trotskyists,it simply isn't true.

And you do realize no serious historian or even a person interested in history would seriously look at a book writte by Trotsky's son,or a book written by Trotsky himself.

Come back with some substance. And dont try to brush Sedov under the carpet like that.

You still have produced noting. There was nothing. I have been though this before with Stalinists. They never produce anything because there was nothing.

If you think Sedov is worthless you have to go through it line by line producing new evidence or counter-arguments, you denunciation means nothing.

Trotsky and Sedov told a couple of minor porkies to protect innocent people. They had to do this because 10% of what Stalin was saying was true, so the waters could get muddy easily.

There was not centre, no plot, nothing. This was a political counter revolution in the interests of an elite and as a Marxist you should be questioning the Stalinist line honestly, not just repeating it for the sake of it, it achieves nothing.

Go find your evidence.

[daft punk]

Manic, I will take you off ignore when you learn to post seriously, I just find your posts annoying and largely a waste of time. Nothing personal you understand. Up your game and I will take you off ignore. Look at Omsk, he is not on ignore. Zulu is not on ignore. Try to figure out why.

[manic expression]

Manic, I will take you off ignore when
...you're no longer an intellectual coward. Not likely, not likely. :laugh:

As for now, this illustrates your inability to confront reality:


I'm not really interested in reading loads of figures and bullshit from your mate Getty.Ah, yes, the Getty who was supposedly so pro-Stalin just a few posts ago is now just "bullshit". Why? Because he contradicts your ideological friend Robert Conquest? Make up your mind: is Getty a secret "Stalinist" or do you just not want to face facts?

[daft punk]

I dunno, I hold out an olive branch to a drowning man but he would rather stick two fingers up than grasp it, and so is washed away in the torrent.

[manic expression]

I dunno, I hold out an olive branch to a drowning man but he would rather stick two fingers up than grasp it, and so is washed away in the torrent.
Not going to address the point? OK, then I'll take that as "I refuse to deal with the findings of Getty because I'm scared of the facts and prefer anti-socialist lies".

Just as I expected.

[Geiseric]

I'm confused as to why Stalinists take Getty seriously, since he's not a Marxist and in the end of the day is just a bourgeois author trying to get some shock "conspiracy theorist," people to read his book about something that they know nothing about.

Is he even any kind of materialist? Annyways, it would make sense that Trotsky, who was killed by Stalin, would politically oppose Stalin since Stalin politically opposes the goals of the revolution. It's obvious that he benefited from the Purges since he was the guy in charge of the show at the end. Like Lenin said, "All you have to wonder, is who benefits?"

If he didn't go through and sign off each and every death warrant, I don't think Woodrow Wilson signed the orders during the Red Scare and the Palmer Raids either. But that's not rellevent, the point is he did nothing against the purges except kill the people who carried them out. That is not by any means enough. It's just watching your own ass.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Geez, Omsk, you and I have been back and forth a bunch of times about the purges. Ultimately the precise numbers are bullshit -- big picture, a whole generation of revolutionaries go over to the other side. Trotsky writes reams of documents DEFENDING the USSR -- even under intense pressure, even with major splits in his own ranks. Even at the cost of death LOers defend the USSR . . . led by STALIN. You argue that it could be true, that all of these leading revolutionaries turned to sabotage and reaction -- and it could be, but it isn't. The sun might fall out of the sky today, but I feel pretty certain that it won't. Stalin slaughtered the best and brightest in the USSR to maintain his own hold on power. He defended the revolution only insofar as it directly protected his own political power (as he understood things).

And I would say to comrade Daft, Omsk uses legit cites -- I've ran a number of them down. They exist -- but are awful. Usually Stalinist hacks, regurgitating what someone in a bureau in Moscow wrote. In fact, I am amazed that he exhumes this shit from the archives. Kudos for that, I guess.

[Crux]

I can't understand why followers of Trotsky here repeat the same words that the "inquiry committee" set by Gorbachev had said. Most probably Gorbachev is also a trotskyist, at least he said in the same tone as the defenders of Trotsky here.
surely. Just like mao, tito and krushev. Again stalinist lies, propaganda and tautologies would be merely amusing, the way tinfoilhats are amusing, if it wasn't for the thousands of communists murdered and imprisoned with those very same outlandish claims. Claiming that trotsky allied with germany and japan is patently absurd and backed with absolutly zero evidence from either german or soviet archives. Further more it makes no ideological sense, assuming you would have even a cursory knowledge of bolshevism. Neither does the claims of terror cells, allied with hitler no less. In an interesting twist of irony meanwhile the regime of stalin also claimed, at the time, not to have been behind the murder of trotsky. Funny that stalin's little parrots on here don't try to pass along that too as fact.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Trotsky was collaborating with Nazi Germany, attempting to kill Stalin, and actively sabotaging Soviet industry. If their allegiances were to Trotsky, they were traitors, plain and simple, and deserved to be shot.
i was about to thank this post -- but then realized you were saying this without any irony. Where does belief in these utter fairy tales come from? Are you really that gullible?

[Amal]

surely. Just like mao, tito and krushev. Again stalinist lies, propaganda and tautologies would be merely amusing, the way tinfoilhats are amusing, if it wasn't for the thousands of communists murdered and imprisoned with those very same outlandish claims. Claiming that trotsky allied with germany and japan is patently absurd and backed with absolutly zero evidence from either german or soviet archives. Further more it makes no ideological sense, assuming you would have even a cursory knowledge of bolshevism. Neither does the claims of terror cells, allied with hitler no less. In an interesting twist of irony meanwhile the regime of stalin also claimed, at the time, not to have been behind the murder of trotsky. Funny that stalin's little parrots on here don't try to pass along that too as fact.
That's why you are vomiting imperialist garbage in this website. Though I wouldn't expect anything different from people like you.

[daft punk]

Cooeee, Stalinists. Please post some evidence. Let's look at the detail. I mean proper evidence, not just a vague quote from Getty I cant even check.

Lev- I'm sure they are but I do like to see context.

[Crux]

That's why you are vomiting imperialist garbage in this website. Though I wouldn't expect anything different from people like you.
amal, please, for the benefit of us non-tinfoilhats, what exactly is "imperialist garbage"? Saying that a nazi-trotrkyist-zinovievist- bukharinist terror network is absolute nonsense? Or did you mean to say that you stand by the stalin regimes original story and trotsky was in fact murdered by a disaffected sympathizer?
Amal, I hate to break it to you, but the stalinist bureacracy habitually lied about many many things. Does being a stalinist mean you follow in their footsteps?

[manic expression]

Cooeee, Stalinists. Please post some evidence. Let's look at the detail. I mean proper evidence, not just a vague quote from Getty I cant even check.
First, that wasn't all that was posted. You've ignored all of Getty's findings because you know it punctures your anti-socialist balloon. Second, you can check the quote I provided. Third, here's an article (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64572/robert-legvold/yezhov-the-rise-of-stalins-iron-fist) by him calling Yezhov a monster, so obviously your denial is just hot air. Fourth, nowhere have you provided anything to support your insane accusation that Getty is some secret "Stalinist".

So, the facts prove you wrong yet again. Anti-socialist liars often find it so.

[black magick hustla]

That's why you are vomiting imperialist garbage in this website. Though I wouldn't expect anything different from people like you.

how high was ur baby crib when u fell and hit ur head

[daft punk]

First, that wasn't all that was posted. You've ignored all of Getty's findings because you know it punctures your anti-socialist balloon. Second, you can check the quote I provided. Third, here's an article (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64572/robert-legvold/yezhov-the-rise-of-stalins-iron-fist) by him calling Yezhov a monster, so obviously your denial is just hot air. Fourth, nowhere have you provided anything to support your insane accusation that Getty is some secret "Stalinist".

So, the facts prove you wrong yet again. Anti-socialist liars often find it so.

You know I might have to take you off ignore if you keep replying to my posts, especially when your posts are so tempting like this.

"You've ignored all of Getty's findings because you know it punctures your anti-socialist balloon."

You havent posted any, just some vague bits about numbers killed. Getty supports Stalin. What quote?

Your article is not by Getty it is a review of his book.

"Fourth, nowhere have you provided anything to support your insane accusation that Getty is some secret "Stalinist""

Yes I did

"Once again J Arch Getty and O Naumov are going to rattle cages about the great purges and the misrepresentation of Stalin and the Bolsheviks during the period of 1930-1939. Once more the archives demonstrate that Stalin was correct and the anti-communist elements and fifth column - from Trotsky to Khrushchev - were wrong. "
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3EPVNKI1OS3CT?tag=lbp0a24-21

see also the other stuff I posted plus stuff like this:

"J Arch Getty proves in his “Origins of the great purges” (1985) that there were an actual Trotskyite conspiracy against the Stalin regime."
http://www.adjunkten.com/Historical%20interpretations%20of%20Stalinism.htm


I get the impression he thinks Stalin was somewhat justified in purging the Trots, dont you?

Now, forget about Getty, post some evidence that Trotsky conspired with the Nazis and plotted terrorism.


Put up or shut up.

[manic expression]

You havent posted any, just some vague bits about numbers killed. Getty supports Stalin. What quote?
They've been posted on this thread, and you've ignored them because you know it debunks your anti-socialist, pro-capitalist mindset.


Your article is not by Getty it is a review of his book.
And yet it seems Getty didn't go out of his way to support Yezhov or Stalin in his work...meaning you're making stuff up.

Oh, and The Road to Terror, page 163. I win, you lose. :laugh:


"Fourth, nowhere have you provided anything to support your insane accusation that Getty is some secret "Stalinist""

Yes I did
Oh, wow, a user review on amazon.com. Nice evidence. What's next on your list of citations, conservopedia?


see also the other stuff I posted plus stuff like this:
Which also doesn't prove your nonexistent point in the slightest.


I get the impression he thinks Stalin was somewhat justified in purging the Trots, dont you?
Your impression, as always, is delusional.


Now, forget about Getty, post some evidence that Trotsky conspired with the Nazis and plotted terrorism.
Those weren't my claims. Do try to keep up. As for me, I'm quite content pointing out how you employ anti-socialist lies, and how intellectually bankrupt you really are. Thanks for illustrating that once again.

[Rooster]

Getty called Stalin "a monster" in his writings.


here's an article (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64572/robert-legvold/yezhov-the-rise-of-stalins-iron-fist) by him calling Yezhov a monster

:confused:

[Grenzer]

For once, I actually agree with Manic.

Daft Punk, there is really no evidence at all that Getty is some sort crypto-Stalinist. I doubt you've ever read any of his works. Stalin fucked up enough as it was, there is no need to distort the reality to fit your little narrative at every turn. The truth is enough, but you have to filter everything through your ultra-sectarian blinders.. no wonder half the people on your ignore list actually would agree with many of your politics if not for how you presented them!

Getty for the most part tries to examine things impartially in a scholarly manner; is it really a surprise that it turned out to be a myth that Stalin killed thirty million? From your point of view, shouldn't Russia being a degerated workers' state be the fulcrum of your criticisms? You're just making an embarassment of yourself by making this shit up, punk.

[Amal]

Cooeee, Stalinists. Please post some evidence. Let's look at the detail. I mean proper evidence, not just a vague quote from Getty I cant even check.

Lev- I'm sure they are but I do like to see context.
I can't, because what I have understood about you so far is that anything anti-Trotsky isn't "proper" to you. All neutral are "bourgeoisie liberal" and the rest "Stalinist". Nobody in this world can satisfy you "properly".

[Amal]

how high was ur baby crib when u fell and hit ur head
Same as when you were struck by Trotsky's ghost in your head.

[Amal]

amal, please, for the benefit of us non-tinfoilhats, what exactly is "imperialist garbage"? Saying that a nazi-trotrkyist-zinovievist- bukharinist terror network is absolute nonsense? Or did you mean to say that you stand by the stalin regimes original story and trotsky was in fact murdered by a disaffected sympathizer?
Amal, I hate to break it to you, but the stalinist bureacracy habitually lied about many many things. Does being a stalinist mean you follow in their footsteps?
Imperialist garbage is something that denies all eye-witnesses and evidences and come to conclusion with a pre-conceived notion. You are just unable to understand that how your words match with bastard Gorby and the assholes he set as "commission".

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

S

Absolutely not.There were mistakes and faulty works from some of the people assigned with the various everyday tasks and some more important,but it is absurd to say that the mistakes of the objectively non - political people is somehow entirey atributed to the Trotskyists,it simply isn't true.

And you do realize no serious historian or even a person interested in history would seriously look at a book writte by Trotsky's son,or a book written by Trotsky himself.

But that's not true, Omsk. Trotsky was consistent throughout his life. There is a clarity and logic to his writings. When he did change a position, he noted it was a change and explained why. He examine his own mistakes and tried to rectify them. So when he wrote things, they did have a reasonable amount of credibility -- at least with decent historians. Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution is backed up pretty well by the accounts of Reed and Sukhanov, but also by later historians like Rabinowich (The Bolsheviks Come to Power). Stalin's version, esp. with regard to his own role, shows up as false.

Stalin also changed position's very sharply, in a panic, without discussing why the old position needed to be changed. He went from third-period ultra-leftism, to people's frontism on a dime, never admitting the disasters wrought by the third period policies. He went from a fierce pro-peasant policy to brutal forced-collectivization in the wink of an eye, with no examination of the rightist policy of enriching the peasantry at the expense of the proletariat. And he lied and falsified, even about his previous positions.

If you are cool with merely hundreds of thousands of communists being lined up and shot for made up charges, to protect Stalin's ass, then good for you. And don't give us that shit equating purges in the teens and early twenties with purges in the thirties. In the thirties, very often being purged was followed soon after by a bullet in the head. This was simply not the case earlier on. The Bolsheviks under Lenin could be harsh -- they had to be in the service of the revolution. Stalin, the sadistic butcher, by the time he held power, used it in the service of self. He was happy to slaughter all of his old comrades -- great revolutionaries among them.

[Crux]

Imperialist garbage is something that denies all eye-witnesses and evidences and come to conclusion with a pre-conceived notion. You are just unable to understand that how your words match with bastard Gorby and the assholes he set as "commission".
I assume you are referencing the moscow showtrials. Please do present their "evidence". Again this would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that thousands of communists were murdered and imprisoned. Also why won't you answer my question on the claims made by the stalinist press on the murder of trotsky? Don't you read Pravda, comrade? I couldn't give two fucks about what Gorby thinks. Besides the lies against the Left Opposition continued under all stalinist burouecrats from the man of steel himself up until gorby. It is no coincidence Trotsky was never rehabilitated in the ussr.
Also fuck gorbatjov. He's just a stalinist apparatchnik turned sozi. Like most of you lot. Yes even the "anti-revisionists".

[Geiseric]

It doesn't matter if Getty was pro-stalin or pro capitalist, what does matter is that no member of the American bourgeois intelligencia would dare to write against U.S. foreign policy.

The american ambassador to the fSU wrote favorably about Stalin. The entire propaganda was about how "Uncle Joe," is taking in some workers from America that are jobless. I'm not saying that Capitalists liked him, but the direction that he was moving the U.S.S.R. in was popular with them. They liked the chance to export Ford car factories to the U.S.S.R. since the workers in America were pretty much going on strike, and the U.S.S.R. was another market for the non selling American goods.

His politics don't matter but he's insignificant anyways.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No. It implys that Daft Punk posts that in every single thread.

WWP is trotskyist

That is interesting because when I was at the UNAC conference with my comrades they referred to the WWP as, and I quote, "Stalinist dogs." Now, as a Pan-Leftist, I like dogs, especially those cute puppies, but I find it interesting that such would be said if the WWP was purely Trotskyist. When you say Trotskyist do you mean Post-Trotskyist?

Probably just mindless sectarianism but an interesting point to get resolved.

[dodger]

It doesn't matter if Getty was pro-stalin or pro capitalist, what does matter is that no member of the American bourgeois intelligencia would dare to write against U.S. foreign policy.

The american ambassador to the fSU wrote favorably about Stalin. The entire propaganda was about how "Uncle Joe," is taking in some workers from America that are jobless. I'm not saying that Capitalists liked him, but the direction that he was moving the U.S.S.R. in was popular with them. They liked the chance to export Ford car factories to the U.S.S.R. since the workers in America were pretty much going on strike, and the U.S.S.R. was another market for the non selling American goods.

His politics don't matter but he's insignificant anyways.

The Workers too were happy,Syd, bottles of Stout, packets of cigs, messages of friendship were placed in packing cases containing parts or machines.

"Another Lathe for UNCLE JOE!"

Workers were quite clear what it meant, the factory would stay open, for the time being at least. Surely the Soviets were thriving----they were the only orders in the pipeline? "They must be doing well, surely?":confused::unsure:

[Grenzer]

His politics don't matter but [Getty]'s insignificant anyways.

You're right, his politics don't matter and his works are not monolithic. What does get annoying is how hysterical Daft Punk gets over Stalin and Stalinists; he's an embarrassment to you Trotskyists that don't see some kind of Stalinist infiltrator hiding behind every corner. He's stirring up sectarian wars everywhere, and worse off, he's doing a terrible job of it and making a fool out of himself.

Isn't it a bit of exaggeration to say that Stalin's economic strategy was "popular with the American bourgeois"? I'm pretty sure they didn't feel happy about Russian economic model after World War 2.

[Amal]

I just don't understand, if Stalin was so popular among american bourgeoisie, why he is still so much hated by imperialists worldwide?

[Geiseric]

He wasn't hated by Imperialists worldwide, of course they tried to invade and imperialise the U.S.S.R. but the imperialists were too weak to actually invade. Stalin, in order to fortify his power, made deals with france and england to halt supporting revolutionary activity at large in order for better foreign relations. There are a multitude of pacts and treaties signed with bourgeois governments that guaranteed that the Comintern would halt revolutionary activity in their countries. He was of course still hated as being the leader of a workers state, and the nazis tried to invade along with many other fascist bloc countries, but by then America and German had invested so much into the U.S.S.R. that Stalin tried to play in the middle of the Allies and Axis, inevitibly going to war with the fascists on the same team with the allies, who were just capitalists fighting other capitalists, albeit the old entente vs. the old central powers really.

[dodger]

He wasn't hated by Imperialists worldwide, of course they tried to invade and imperialise the U.S.S.R. but the imperialists were too weak to actually invade. Stalin, in order to fortify his power, made deals with france and england to halt supporting revolutionary activity at large in order for better foreign relations. There are a multitude of pacts and treaties signed with bourgeois governments that guaranteed that the Comintern would halt revolutionary activity in their countries. He was of course still hated as being the leader of a workers state, and the nazis tried to invade along with many other fascist bloc countries, but by then America and German had invested so much into the U.S.S.R. that Stalin tried to play in the middle of the Allies and Axis, inevitibly going to war with the fascists on the same team with the allies, who were just capitalists fighting other capitalists, albeit the old entente vs. the old central powers really.

Syd I do find myself asking this question. Were the British Working Class , indeed the American workers embarked on the road to Revolution? If not a pact might seem superfluous, surely?

[Geiseric]

Surely the German one was and the British General Strike was an obvious revelation as to how the British one was revolutionizing. The American working class has had one of the bloodiest class struggles leading untill the Great Depression, in which there was unemployment in grandiose proportions. Obviously things were ripe for revolution, Capitalism was in its dying stage. The only thing that kept it from collapsing was destroying itself and rebuilding just like WW1.

[Grenzer]

Syd I do find myself asking this question. Were the British Working Class , indeed the American workers embarked on the road to Revolution? If not a pact might seem superfluous, surely?

A good question to ask, but I also think it's important to keep in mind Russia's(and by proxy, Stalin's) influence on the 'official' communist parties of most countries. The official Communist parties(such as the CPUSA and CPGB) were more or less extensions of the Russian state. If Stalin made agreements to halt revolutionary activity, then it would reverberate down the chain of command. As this official communist parties had more or less a monopoly on the far left at this time, it seems difficult to deny that such decisions would more or less bring much revolutionary activity to a grinding halt.

Stalin's decision can be justified on a geo-political level, if one holds that Russia was socialist; but as a proletarian internationalist, I find the idea of subordinating the whole of the revolutionary movement to a single state like Russia to be unacceptable.. if anything, it should be the other way around.

As much as a I sympathize with Syd's views, I don't think there was much potential for revolution in ~1940. Had Russia not thrown a wrench into the international proletarian movement, I don't believe it would have recovered sufficiently from its disastrous defeat two decades prior to make revolution. The rise of fascism had already more or less stabilized capital and allowed it to regain its hold. I also think that there really wasn't that much class struggle in the Depression, not compared to what we had seen with the first upswell of socialist sentiment during the Russian Revolution and the first "Red Scare"(~1919).

[Geiseric]

Russia never rose in control of the international movement as far as I know, comintern had its first meetings in Russia but it was accepted by the Bolsheviks as an outpost of the world revolution. Trotsky said that "The first congress of the Comintern was in Moscow, the next will be in Berlin." As Capitalism is in its dying stages, it is obvious that a revolution is necessary! There was a worldwide depression. It was so bad that fascists and nazi guards had to be made in order to oppress the revolutionary workers. Thugs and police (Like Freikorps and the FBI) were used in ways more oppressive than ever before against leftist and communist parties and groups in the 1930s. That era was the climax of Capitalism, when it should of been ended. It took violence on a scale unprecidented to make Capitalism survive.

[Grenzer]

Russia never rose in control of the international movement as far as I know, comintern had its first meetings in Russia but it was accepted by the Bolsheviks as an outpost of the world revolution. Trotsky said that "The first congress of the Comintern was in Moscow, the next will be in Berlin." As Capitalism is in its dying stages, it is obvious that a revolution is necessary! There was a worldwide depression. It was so bad that fascists and nazi guards had to be made in order to oppress the revolutionary workers. Thugs and police (Like Freikorps and the FBI) were used in ways more oppressive than ever before against leftist and communist parties and groups in the 1930s. That era was the climax of Capitalism, when it should of been ended. It took violence on a scale unprecidented to make Capitalism survive.

Are you really denying that by 1921 Russia wasn't asserting its unquestioned dominance over the Comintern?

It's quite clear that they were trying to purge out anyone who didn't bow to the Russian line, which is why parties like the KAPD formed in the first place. It's true that Russia was the outpost of world revolution, but that doesn't give it the right to force affiliated parties of the international proletarian movement to subordinate their policy to Russian national interest. Increasingly over time, official communist parties like the KPD would become a mere extension of the Russian state. I have often seen Trotskyists blame Stalin for imposing the policy of social fascism throughout the official communist parties, for which they blame the rise of the Naizs on the KPD bowing before the Russian line. So which is it; either the official communist parties retained their independence and Russia isn't to blame for the failure of the Nazi rise to power and the failure of the Spanish 'revolution', or they were puppets of Moscow.

[dodger]

Not my view of the General Strike, revolutionary. We survives depression with factory branches, trade union organization. A tremendous political effort went in supporting republican Spain. The Cpgb always a party of 'thinkers' and 'doers' and a ironclad version(in the worst sense) of democratic-centralism. It would be less painful to blame Soviet skulduggery on a revolution not breaking out. I think we need to grow up and look at where we are at fault ourselves. Betrayal, the cry of cuckolded lovers over millennium, hardly worthy of mention.

No we fucked it up all by ourselves. Weakness in class and party, along with strengths. We booted Fascists off the streets of Britain, following many to well heeled neighbourhood....returning the favour and making a stink. One would be mistaken for believing no gains were made, defeats too, dissolving party workplace branch was a disaster, fought tooth and nail against. Getting in bed with Labour because Lenin told leading communists to do it in 192?, before there had ever been a Labour government no longer made sense. We all know what they are about by now. Dughhh" Obsession with Labour aristocracy- workers could do no wrong(unless led by union bureaucrats), they behaved abominably! Tremendous sacrifice expended efforts...only to survive within the system. They certainly developed their own philosophy guerilla struggle, an avoidance of positional struggles that might harm themselves more than the enemy.

A British road to socialism, without protracted struggle or bloodshed, nice to think so....the workers weren't buying in, would you?? I should Cocoa!!

[daft punk]

They've been posted on this thread, and you've ignored them because you know it debunks your anti-socialist, pro-capitalist mindset.

Nowhere on this thread has any evidence of 'Trotskyists sabotages' been posted. If they have, please repeat them here.



And yet it seems Getty didn't go out of his way to support Yezhov or Stalin in his work...meaning you're making stuff up.

Oh, and The Road to Terror, page 163. I win, you lose. :laugh:
I have 3 sources saying that Getty believed Stalin was right.
P 163 says what?

[QUOTE=manic expression;2406485]
Oh, wow, a user review on amazon.com. Nice evidence. What's next on your list of citations, conservopedia?

He is a professional historian. He is bound to try to appear objective. However he does seem to favour Stalin. Now, forget about him, show us the evidence of Trotskyist sabotages.






Those weren't my claims. Do try to keep up. As for me, I'm quite content pointing out how you employ anti-socialist lies, and how intellectually bankrupt you really are. Thanks for illustrating that once again.


Stop shit posting. This thread is about Trotskyist sabotages. Please post your evidence for these here:


Evidence of conspiracy with Nazis
Evidence of conspiracy against the USSR
Evidence of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism
Evidence of other acts

Post it here, dont say 'Ive already done it' - Ive seen nothing, anything you have post it now.

This thread is 100 posts old and so far NOTHING.


Post your evidence or go back on ignore.

[daft punk]

For once, I actually agree with Manic.


You would agree with anyone who disagreed with me on any topic.




Daft Punk, there is really no evidence at all that Getty is some sort crypto-Stalinist. I doubt you've ever read any of his works.

Can we forget about this Getty geezer? He is just a 'historian' who always turns up in the Stalinists pile of dodgy quotes, plus when I google him all I hear is Trotsky was a baddie, Stalin wasnt so bad, blah balh blah.

The thread is on Trotskyists sabotages.

You know what? I did a thread on this topic and no Stalinist posted. Incredible isnt it? And now, 100 posts in, they are saying they wont post evidence because they already have.

If they have, and I missed it, post it again. This is what the thread is about. I want the evidence.

Post the fucking evidence or shut up.





Stalin fucked up enough as it was, there is no need to distort the reality to fit your little narrative at every turn.

What fucking narrative? I am asking for the evidence as per the OP. So far we have none. Either the Stalinists find evidence or it means they have some blind faith that the mass executions were justified.





The truth is enough, but you have to filter everything through your ultra-sectarian blinders..

Pleas provide evidence to support this pathetic lie.




no wonder half the people on your ignore list actually would agree with many of your politics if not for how you presented them!

People go on ignore because they are shit posters or wankers, not because of their political views. I am here to debate, not to have my ego massaged.

Don't worry, your time will come.

STOP TRYING TO PERSONALISE EVERYTHING. Debate the debate, not the debater. Stop forcing me to defend myself against your lies and slander.



Getty for the most part tries to examine things impartially in a scholarly manner; is it really a surprise that it turned out to be a myth that Stalin killed thirty million? From your point of view, shouldn't Russia being a degerated workers' state be the fulcrum of your criticisms? You're just making an embarassment of yourself by making this shit up, punk.

Making what up?

Pleas show concisely what I have made up now or be branded a liar for the second time.


What 30 million? I never said 30 million. I said 1 million which is probably low.

The fucking DWS, what has that got to do with this thread? I am debating that with people much more tolerable than you, but I am a bit bored with it .

The thread is about 'Trotskyist sabotages'. Do you have anything to say regarding the subject of the thread?

[Geiseric]

to this day after coming on this forum for a few months i've seen a bunch of these threads and I've never actually seen any proof of "sabotage," or "terrorism," with any of the old bolsheviks. Maybe ordering a slightly more expensive tractor or mining macchinery that wasn't needed, and the guy who did that was shot and they called it "sabotage." That's all i've actually heard about proof.

[Grenzer]

The thread is on Trotskyists sabotages.

You know what? I did a thread on this topic and no Stalinist posted. Incredible isnt it? And now, 100 posts in, they are saying they wont post evidence because they already have.

Is it really surprising that no Stalinists are willing to engage on the subject when you aren't willing to either? You're just trying to stir up sectarian wars. There's absolutely been no willingness for you to engage on anything. You just go from one thread to another, spewing the party line and attacking Stalinists for the hell of it; it's really quite pathetic. In addition, it's worth noting that the topic has been debated many, many times; so it gets rather arduous making the same counterpoint again and again. Some of the more knowledgeable Stalinists don't feel it's worth the time making their arguments for the nth time when it's quite obvious you're completely blind to any sort of reasoning and the possibility that you may be wrong.

Furthermore, you aren't even willing to make a real analysis; you simply regurgitate what you find on the internet somewhere. Try thinking for yourself instead of merely pasting someone else's argument. We've said this time and time again, and you still refuse to do it.

Your pathetic cry to "Stay on topic!" is really just an attempt to mask the fact that you have no credibility and aren't willing to confront the accusations of how you conduct your arguments. Instead you hide from them and admonish people in the form of PMs like a coward. If you don't think our issues with our views of your behavior is legitimate, then confront it openly.

People don't respond to your threads because it seems like you're just trolling half the time. Who can blame them? It's not so much Trotskyism or your opinions that people have a problem with, it's you. The fact that most of the people on your wall of honor hate Stalin is proof enough.

As it stands, you can continue to keep flaming and have the delusion that it's still the 1940's; but don't whine because no one takes you seriously. I'd be lying if I said that I hated to break the truth to you; but your attitude has really been quite insufferable and childish.

If you insist on peddling your one sided strawmen, then you should take it here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/) as I believe they'll be much more receptive to them.

[daft punk]

to this day after coming on this forum for a few months i've seen a bunch of these threads and I've never actually seen any proof of "sabotage," or "terrorism," with any of the old bolsheviks. Maybe ordering a slightly more expensive tractor or mining macchinery that wasn't needed, and the guy who did that was shot and they called it "sabotage." That's all i've actually heard about proof.


you would think the Stalinists on here would at least have a basic idea of what the charges were, seeing as how they like to make vague accusations every other post. In the old days the Stalinists didnt worry if the lies made any sense or not, and these days they dont seem to even bother learning what the charges even were. I was once told about an incriminating letter but when I pushed I was told it was lost in the archives!

PMSL.

[Geiseric]

Grenzier, I think Daft Punk is on point with this thread. I have never seen any proof either, and it's frustrating seeing thread after thread of "I want proof." "Ok, here's J. Arch Getty, some twat that by coincedence agrees with us. Apparently he read a bunch of documents in the U.S.S.R." "But he's obviously full of shit if you start reading his book, nothing he says is actual proof." "You're pro-capitalist, and you're denying my source!" <--Strawman that gets the thread off topic. At this point is when I stop trying.

[Omsk]

This is why I gave up this thread.

[Grenzer]

Grenzier, I think Daft Punk is on point with this thread. I have never seen any proof either, and it's frustrating seeing thread after thread of "I want proof." "Ok, here's J. Arch Getty, some twat that by coincedence agrees with us. Apparently he read a bunch of documents in the U.S.S.R." "But he's obviously full of shit if you start reading his book, nothing he says is actual proof." "You're pro-capitalist, and you're denying my source!" <--Strawman that gets the thread off topic. At this point is when I stop trying.

True enough, it just seemed like it was time to call out Daft Punk for his constant and blatant trolling of Stalinists. Every post I've ever seen him make is something complaining about Stalin, sometimes literally repeating the same thing he's said before verbatim. There is much to criticize Stalinism for, of course, but things should try to be kept constructive when possible. Daft Punk with his ultra-sectarianism just throws things in the shitter. There is more to communism than anti-Stalinism.

There wasn't really going to be able to be a discussion on the matter of sabotage anyway; as there are probably only a few stalinists on the board who have the knowledge to try to make a somewhat credible(if unsatisfactory) argument, and they don't feel like it's worth taking the time with this sort of atmosphere.

On the subject of Trotskyist sabotage, I don't think there was any. The Trotskyists had a marginal presence in Russia, and I doubt they had the capacity(let alone the incliniation) to do the sort of things they were accused of. It was basically just a convenient and false scapegoat to justify an increase of state repression and executions.

Daft Punk is basically the Rosa Lichtenstein of anti-Stalinism.

[daft punk]

Is it really surprising that no Stalinists are willing to engage on the subject when you aren't willing to either? You're just trying to stir up sectarian wars. There's absolutely been no willingness for you to engage on anything.

It's just lie after lie from you isnt it? Non stop lies. I started a thread dedicated to the Moscow trials. If the Stalinists posted some evidence, I was ready for some serious research and it never happened. So dont accuse me of being a hit and run poster.




You just go from one thread to another, spewing the party line and attacking Stalinists for the hell of it; it's really quite pathetic.


I already debunked your 'party line' lie you copied of whatshis name. I wrote a detailed post on it but you never replied. You have made this personal and you are trapped in your own cesspool of thought.




In addition, it's worth noting that the topic has been debated many, many times; so it gets rather arduous making the same counterpoint again and again.

I didnt write the OP did I? This thread is in Learning. by definition it is gonna get done again and again. But if it has been done so often, how come the Stalinists cant just fire off the main charges and evidence off the top of their heads?





Some of the more knowledgeable Stalinists don't feel it's worth the time making their arguments for the nth time when it's quite obvious you're completely blind to any sort of reasoning and the possibility that you may be wrong.


I am trained in geology. It's like historical detective work. New ideas sometimes come along and replace old ones. It happens.

So far, 2 threads, no evidence full stop let alone new stuff.







Furthermore, you aren't even willing to make a real analysis; you simply regurgitate what you find on the internet somewhere. Try thinking for yourself instead of merely pasting someone else's argument. We've said this time and time again, and you still refuse to do it.


who is this 'we' you speak of? The royal we? Or do you speak for the Stalinists now?
Any fucking idiot can make a statement like 'you arent willing to make a real analysis'. Back it up or shut up.




Your pathetic cry to "Stay on topic!" is really just an attempt to mask the fact that you have no credibility

it's a cry to stay on topic. I want to discuss Trotskyist sabotages.




and aren't willing to confront the accusations of how you conduct your arguments.

oh look! You want to make it personal. What a surprise.




Instead you hide from them and admonish people in the form of PMs like a coward.

I told you, in future I will humiliate you in public, if I have to. If that's what you want.



If you don't think our issues with our views of your behavior is legitimate, then confront it openly.

'Our'? You and Kassad? I did. I worte a long post proving you both to be liars. Neither of you bothered to reply.




People don't respond to your threads because it seems like you're just trolling half the time.

what the fuck do you think you are doing right now?




Who can blame them? It's not so much Trotskyism or your opinions that people have a problem with, it's you. The fact that most of the people on your wall of honor hate Stalin is proof enough.

hey, I know, why not make it personal?





As it stands, you can continue to keep flaming and have the delusion that it's still the 1940's; but don't whine because no one takes you seriously.

A young person posted this thread in good faith. To learn. No Stalinist has bothered to oblige, and all you are interested in is personal attacks. I'm gonna put you on ignore soon because your shit posting is a waste of time.





I'd be lying if I said that I hated to break the truth to you; but your attitude has really been quite insufferable and childish.

If you insist on peddling your one sided strawmen, then you should take it here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/) as I believe they'll be much more receptive to them.


Do you just like repeating internet words like troll and flame and straw man and so on? Is it some kind of fetish? Is this what your life is, lying and sniping?

Now, do one.

[Geiseric]

They had more than a marginal presence, to the point where they had to be purged! This is the entire point, the Left Opposition was right. The center and right oppositions were wrong, and the left had to be purged in order for the center, including Stalin, to retain and keep power. Once this is admitted, i'll stop *****ing. But if the Stalinist tankie cult 13-year-old "quote grover furr, who isn't even a communist, just to prove a point that was shown wrong dozens of yearss ago," mentality is tolerated, it will be a detriment later on down the line.

Understanding what went wrong with the Communist movement the first time around is increadibly important! If we accept the "revisionist," line than we are fucking stupid!

[Omsk]

admitted, i'll stop *****ing. But if the Stalinist tankie cult 13-year-old "quote grover furr, who isn't even a communist, just to prove a point that was shown wrong dozens of yearss ago," mentality is tolerated, it will be a detriment later on down the line.

Who quoted anything from Grover Furr in this discussion?No one.

And with this post,and similar ones,you have proved what an incorrigible and completely ridiculous debater you are.

I understand you have been demolished beyond belief by the many "Stalinists" you cry about,but at least control yourself.

[daft punk]

Calm down, calm down.

Are you gonna deflower this thread from a 'Stalinist posts evidence of Trotskyist sabotages' or what?

[Geiseric]

I've never been "demolished," by a Stalinist. I got fed up with the forum after some crap that still confuses me happened, but i'm not gonna talk about that. But the point is i'm only on here because i'm bored so anything I say really doesn't matter in the long run.

Getty, Furr, etc. are not reliable sources for information. Find anything else and find some proof about sabotages that justified the purges. I'm not even going to reply again if i don't see any proof.

[Omsk]

There are many claims and written sources mainly about the trials and the conffesions of the people who were arrested before the trials,but I wont post them because I know you would simply dismiss these claims as lies or in a similar fashion.I don't think it would actually be of much use.And just to answer you,I know what were the charges in the most of the cases,and I know some of the confesions,I memorized the one of Bukharin.However,I doubt much discussion would arise from such long texts.


Getty, Furr, etc. are not reliable sources for information.

Getty is an internationally accepted historian,of the academic level.Furr is also quite accepted.I quoted many other historians,but you of course,didn't bother to read their works,or probably didn't hear of them,in the first place.As a mater of fact,i yet have to see a claim of your actually backed up by anything,because you mostly type incoherent rants out of your head.

[daft punk]

What I cant understand Syd, is why there are so many Stalinists and left coms on here. I real life, most socialist are Trots. Maybe they are all busy doing real stuff.

[daft punk]

There are many claims and written sources mainly about the trials and the conffesions of the people who were arrested before the trials,but I wont post them because I know you would simply dismiss these claims as lies or in a similar fashion.I don't think it would actually be of much use.And just to answer you,I know what were the charges in the most of the cases,and I know some of the confesions,I memorized the one of Bukharin.However,I doubt much discussion would arise from such long texts.

Just post some one at a time and I promise I will research them and not dismiss them out of hand.

Bukharin was a broken man by the time he 'confessed'. He grovelled to Stalin. Do you know, 15 years later when Stalin snuffed it, he still had Bukharin's 'confession' in his desk? Sick fucker.

Am I allowed to post this, just to cheer Syd up?

THedPzVl_cU

[Omsk]

Bukharin was a broken man by the time he 'confessed'. He grovelled to Stalin. Do you know, 15 years later when Stalin snuffed it, he still had Bukharin's 'confession' in his desk? Sick fucker.

You just basically dismissed them in this short little text,and you have proved my point.If you want,there are some records and transcribed information about the trials I have,but I doubt that me posting them would change anything,so I wont bother.

[Geiseric]

fucking EMI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjbie1O1jxc

Btw Omsk, why was kamanev's entire familly harassed and killed? And Trotsky's family, why were alot of them killed?

[daft punk]

Trepper was enrolled at the Marchlevski University, alongside the future leaders of the world’s communist parties, including Tito, where the students were lectured by Old Bolsheviks, like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin, the future victims of Stalin, who were already too well aware of their impending fate. Trepper remarks “When he (Bukharin) finished a lecture, he regularly received a veritable ovation – which he always greeted with a blank stare…One day, looking sadly over a roomful of students acclaiming him, he muttered, “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.”

The bloke who said that was one of the USSR's top heroes, credibility 100%, risked his life every day for years working underground in Nazi occupied territory, passing information back to Russia advising on when the Nazis were gonna attack and so on.

Plus I know that Zinoviev and Kamenev told Trotsky they thought Staln would kill them eventually.

"Execution Among other intercessors, the French author and Nobel laureate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureate) Romain Rolland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romain_Rolland) wrote to Stalin seeking clemency, arguing that "an intellect like that of Bukharin is a treasure for his country." He compared Bukharin's situation to that of the great chemist Antoine Lavoisier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier) who was guillotined during the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution): "We in France, the most ardent revolutionaries... still profoundly grieve and regret what we did.... I beg you to show clemency." [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin#cite_note-13) He had earlier written to Stalin in 1937, "For the sake of Gorky I am asking you for mercy, even if he may be guilty of something," to which Stalin noted: "We must not respond." Bukharin was executed on 15 March 1938, but the announcement of his death was overshadowed by the Nazi Anschluss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss) of Austria.
'Koba, why do you need me to die?' (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language): Коба, зачем тебе нужна моя смерть?) Bukharin wrote in a note to Stalin just before his execution. ("Koba" was Stalin's revolutionary pseudonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym), and Bukharin's use of it was a sign of how close the two had once been. The note was found still in Stalin's desk after his death in 1953.)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin#cite_note-14)
Despite the promise to spare his family, Bukharin's wife, Anna Larina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Larina), was sent to a labor camp, but she survived to see her husband officially rehabilitated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitate_%28Soviet%29) by the Soviet state under Mikhail Gorbachev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev) in 1988"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin#Execution

[daft punk]

fucking EMI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjbie1O1jxc

Btw Omsk, why was kamanev's entire familly harassed and killed? And Trotsky's family, why were alot of them killed?

CLis7z5oRj8

Oh yeah, thats what I was gonna say, they overlap actually, Kamenev's wife was Trotsky's sister. Bet her life was complicated!

[Rooster]

It doesn't make any logical sense to say that all of those people who worked towards revolution, the old bolsheviks, Trotsky, etc, were a part of a vast terrorist network allied with the Germans and the Japanese. One, it doesn't make any sense and two, there's no evidence for it apart from the Moscow trials (which isn't within the definition of evidence). It doesn't make sense unless you think Stalin and the Stalinist bureaucracy represented true socialism.

[Geiseric]

Fucking WMG! Those capitalist bastards, I can't view any of these videos...

[daft punk]

It didnt make much sense in the 1930s and it sure as fuck doesnt make sense now.

But I genuinely would like to know at least the basics of the 'evidence'/charges. Without having to read millions of tons of stuff.

I remember reading about some Bristol Hotel they were supposed to have been, and all sorts of weird claims, but I'm a bit rusty on it.

[Geiseric]

I heard that trotsky and Lenin were in the same league as Kaiser Wilhelm because they bummed a ride from him into russia and bretz litovsk pact >.> so they should have been purged by the other bolsheviks right? :p

[daft punk]

Fucking WMG! Those capitalist bastards, I can't view any of these videos...

bastards. I hope you can see this

nOKL2oUBODw

[manic expression]

Nowhere on this thread has any evidence of 'Trotskyists sabotages' been posted. If they have, please repeat them here.
Nowhere on this thread has any evidence of "Stalinist meanness" been posted. If they have, please repeat them here.


I have 3 sources saying that Getty believed Stalin was right.
P 163 says what?
You have three non-sources that tell you nothing.

Page 163 calls Stalin a monster. I win, you lose.


He is a professional historian. He is bound to try to appear objective. However he does seem to favour Stalin.
'Cause you said so.... :laugh:


Stop shit posting. This thread is about Trotskyist sabotages.
My purpose here is to debunk your delusions about the Soviet Union. You brought up those delusional, misguided lies of yours, and now you have to watch as you're exposed as a pro-capitalist hack. That's how it works when you try to lie about socialism.


Post your evidence or go back on ignore.
I already have, you've ignored it because you're an intellectual coward. Have fun lying some more about socialism and promoting capitalism. :lol:

[daft punk]

Nowhere on this thread has any evidence of "Stalinist meanness" been posted. If they have, please repeat them here.


No, I havent bothered. It's well know that Stalin expelled about a million from the CP and killed tens of thousands of them. He also killed over half a million peasants, plus many ethnic minorities and foreigners, eg lots of revolutionaries from other countries living in exile in Russia. I will give you a bit on that:


Many of them were tortured and the repression reached such lengths that the Bulgarian émigrés warned the Bulgarian head of Stalin’s Comintern Georgi Dimitrov: “If you don’t do everything necessary to stop the repressions, then we will kill Yezhov [head of the NKVD, who himself was later purged and shot], this counter-revolutionary.” Eight hundred Yugoslav communists were also arrested. Tito, who became head of the Yugoslav Stalinist state after the Second World War, played a role in organising the destruction of his own party in Moscow. When Tito enquired about who was now to lead the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY), Dimitrov was surprised: “You are the only one left… It’s a good thing that at least you are left, otherwise we would have to disband the CPY.” Those Yugoslavs arrested and shot were killed with the benediction of Tito and Milovan Djilas, who himself was later a ‘dissident’ under the Tito regime and was cast out of the magic circle of ‘Titoism’. Thos charged were expelled from the CPY on charges of ‘Trotskyism’. This did not stop some misguided ‘Trotskyists’, the predecessors of the present United Secretariat of the Fourth International, later describing Tito as an “unconscious Trotskyist”. They even organised work brigades of young people in the 1950s to assist the Yugoslav state in its first period in power when Tito came into collision with Stalin.
A similar repression was launched against the Communist Party of Poland, which had committed the unpardonable sin of actually supporting the Left Opposition in 1923-24. The seventy-year old Adolf Warski, one of the founders of the social-democratic and communist parties of Poland, was shot. The same fate was meted out to the leaders of the Communist Party of Germany who had sought refuge in Russia from the horrors of Nazism only to meet with the horrors inflicted by Stalin’s security apparatus. At the Ninth Congress of the Sozialistiche Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED), the governing party of the former German Democratic Republic, in January 1989, it was reported that at least 242 prominent members of the Communist Party of Germany had perished in the Soviet Union. By the beginning of 1937, the majority of Austrian Schutzbundists had already been arrested. They were members of the socialist military organisation which after the defeat of the anti-fascist uprising of 1934 had emigrated to Russia and had been received there as heroes.
The same fate was met by Hungarians, who probably constituted the biggest foreign national group living in the Soviet Union then. Ten of 16 members of the first Central Committee of the Communist Party of Hungary were killed, as well as 11 out of 20 people’s commissars of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. One of these victims was Bela Kun, who had led the Soviet Republic. At the end of the 1980s it was revealed in a hitherto secret document that Imre Nagy, who became the prime minister of Hungary in 1956, had played an active role in the 1930s in the decimation of the leaders of his own party. He had been for a long time a secret informer for the NKVD. Ironically, after the 1956 uprising he became prime minister of Hungary but was shot following its repression by the successors of the NKVD, the KGB.
Rogovin comments: “Altogether, more communists from Eastern European countries were killed in the Soviet Union than died at home in their own countries during Hitler’s occupation.” One leading Lithuanian communist commented that because of the decimation of the Lithuanian Communist Party’s Central Committee at the hands of Stalin and his executioners, “I alone remained alive! And I remained alive because I had been carrying out underground work in fascist Lithuania.” The same fate befell the Mongolian, Japanese and many other communist parties. Stalin’s seeming paranoia towards all things non-Russian (ironically, he was himself ‘non-Russian’, a Georgian) was revealed later in the secret archives of the NKVD where there was testimony against Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Communist Party of Italy, Harry Pollitt, general secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Jacques Duclos of the French Communist Party, Mao Ze-dong and many others. Latvians, many of them having participated in the underground struggle against tsarism, and in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, were ruthlessly suppressed by Stalin.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3794





You have three non-sources that tell you nothing.

Page 163 calls Stalin a monster. I win, you lose.


'Cause you said so.... :laugh:

[/COLOR][/COLOR]



I'm not really that interested in this Getty geezer tbh.




My purpose here is to debunk your delusions about the Soviet Union. You brought up those delusional, misguided lies of yours, and now you have to watch as you're exposed as a pro-capitalist hack. That's how it works when you try to lie about socialism.

Well that's what I'm waiting for, go on then, make a start, get on with it. Dont just say you are going to debunk my lies and delusions, DO IT.

Post the basic charges of the trials and a bit of evidence, anything.




"Post your evidence or go back on ignore. "

I already have, you've ignored it because you're an intellectual coward. Have fun lying some more about socialism and promoting capitalism. :lol:

I didn't see it. Post it again here please, I keep asking. Post it again now and then it's done.

Your evidence that the Trotskyists deserved to be shot:

(fill in answer here)



.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................

[manic expression]

No, I havent bothered. It's well know that Stalin expelled about a million from the CP and killed tens of thousands of them. He also killed over half a million peasants, plus many ethnic minorities and foreigners, eg lots of revolutionaries from other countries living in exile in Russia. I will give you a bit on that:
Saying something is "well known" means nothing. You haven't bothered showing evidence because you have none.


I'm not really that interested in this Getty geezer tbh.
Probably because he debunks your anti-socialist lies.


Well that's what I'm waiting for, go on then, make a start, get on with it. Dont just say you are going to debunk my lies and delusions, DO IT.
Your lies and delusions have been exposed here. You're trying to convince yourself that the first historian to actually look at the records of the period in question doesn't matter...because you don't like what he found. Typical.


I didn't see it.
Your fault, not mine.


Your evidence that the Trotskyists deserved to be shot:
So you're saying there were large numbers of Trotskyists in the USSR in the late 30's?

[scarletghoul]

Sabotage is the essence of Trollskyism

[daft punk]

Saying something is "well known" means nothing. You haven't bothered showing evidence because you have none.


Probably because he debunks your anti-socialist lies.


Your lies and delusions have been exposed here. You're trying to convince yourself that the first historian to actually look at the records of the period in question doesn't matter...because you don't like what he found. Typical.


Your fault, not mine.


So you're saying there were large numbers of Trotskyists in the USSR in the late 30's?

Manic you are a waste of time. Why cant you actually post something concrete?

Do you allot yourself a 30 second time limit to do a post? I gave you a chance.

Either post something about the trials and purges or I will just ignore you, I am not going to reply to your useless one liners.

As for the number of Trots in the 30s in the USSR, I think about 10,000-30,000, hard to say, depends what you define as a Trot. There were certainly thousands shot. It was the left that Stalin was most concerned about. I have shown that with my quotes from Leopold Trepper.


Ok, this is your final warning. Post some concrete stuff to justify the political executions of the left or keep quiet.

[Kassad]

Daft Punk, let me just say that you never posted anything about me that proved anything more than your delusional fantasies. Come back to me once you get the CWI tattoo on your cock removed and maybe we can discuss the way forward for the working class.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk, let me just say that you never posted anything about me that proved anything more than your delusional fantasies. Come back to me once you get the CWI tattoo on your cock removed and maybe we can discuss the way forward for the working class.

You are a liar, I proved it, you didnt reply, end of.

Kassad
Truth Lies, No Matter How Bitter
Forum Moderator
Global Moderator

[manic expression]

Manic you are a waste of time. Why cant you actually post something concrete?
I have...you've ignored it because you're a pro-capitalist liar.


As for the number of Trots in the 30s in the USSR, I think about 10,000-30,000, hard to say, depends what you define as a Trot. There were certainly thousands shot. It was the left that Stalin was most concerned about. I have shown that with my quotes from Leopold Trepper.
Aha, so as Trotskyists those tens of thousands would have wanted a political revolution in the USSR, which means they were inherently opposed to the Soviet leadership and sought to work towards its overthrow.

Thanks for disproving your entire argument in one paragraph.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I have...you've ignored it because you're a pro-capitalist liar.


Aha, so as Trotskyists those tens of thousands would have wanted a political revolution in the USSR, which means they were inherently opposed to the Soviet leadership and sought to work towards its overthrow.

Thanks for disproving your entire argument in one paragraph.
So, therefore, it was okay to slaughter communists? Obviously, most of those purged and murdered were not Trotskyists. Was it okay to kill them? :confused:

[manic expression]

So, therefore, it was okay to slaughter communists? Obviously, most of those purged and murdered were not Trotskyists. Was it okay to kill them? :confused:
I would say no, but I am speaking from 70 years on which gives me more than a bit of luxury as to my answer. The truth is people had less of an idea of how many Trotskyists there were back in the 30's than we do now, and we still don't know very much. In the end, though, if Trotskyists were dedicated to the political overthrow of the Soviet leadership, how can we fault the Soviet leadership so much for responding to this?

Obviously this is one dimension of the purges, we can't apply this to the whole of the event because it was about more than just the idea that Trotskyists were active.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I would say no, but I am speaking from 70 years on which gives me more than a bit of luxury as to my answer. The truth is people had less of an idea of how many Trotskyists there were back in the 30's than we do now, and we still don't know very much. In the end, though, if Trotskyists were dedicated to the political overthrow of the Soviet leadership, how can we fault the Soviet leadership so much for responding to this?

Obviously this is one dimension of the purges, we can't apply this to the whole of the event because it was about more than just the idea that Trotskyists were active.
Trotskyists did not want to overthrow the state -- just replace the government. There is a huge difference. And there are certainly ways of defeating political opponents shy of exterminating them.

And I don't understand why you, in an organization that traces its beginnings to Trotsky and LO, take such a cavalier attitude toward Stalin's purges. I guess the WWP and PSL have finally morphed into simply Stalinist parties.

[daft punk]

I have...you've ignored it because you're a pro-capitalist liar.

lol! When did I tell a lie? Never. Support or retract please:)




"As for the number of Trots in the 30s in the USSR, I think about 10,000-30,000, hard to say, depends what you define as a Trot. There were certainly thousands shot. It was the left that Stalin was most concerned about. I have shown that with my quotes from Leopold Trepper. "


Aha, so as Trotskyists those tens of thousands would have wanted a political revolution in the USSR, which means they were inherently opposed to the Soviet leadership and sought to work towards its overthrow.

Thanks for disproving your entire argument in one paragraph.

Proving, I think you mean, not disproving. You see Trots have never disputed that they wanted political revolution in the USSR. Trotsky said it many times.

However it was a long term goal to see the masses push away the rotten Stalinist leadership. There was no plot in the 1930s. You can have socialism without the mass consciousness required.

In 1933 the Stalinists allowed the Nazis to take power. They then failed to acknowledge the mistake or discuss it. This was the last straw for Trotsky who announced a break from supporting the Comintern

"In any case, under discussion now is not the immediate proclamation of new parties and of an independent international, but of preparing for them.
The new perspective signifies first of all that talk of “reform” and demands to restore oppositionists in the official parties must be put aside as utopian and reactionary. The day-to-day work must assume an independent character, determined by our own possibilities and forces, and not by the formal criterion of “faction.” The Left Opposition ceases completely to feel and act as an “opposition.” It becomes an independent organization, clearing its own road. It not only builds its own fractions in the Social Democratic and Stalinist parties, but conducts independent work among nonparty and unorganized workers. It creates its own bases of support in the trade unions, independently of the trade-union policy of the Stalinist bureaucracy. It participates in elections under its own banner, whenever favorable conditions for this obtain. In relation to reformist and centrist labor organizations (including the Stalinists) it is guided by the general principles of the united-front policy. In particular, it applies the policy of the united front especially in order to defend the USSR against external intervention and internal counterrevolution."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm

He is proclaiming the need to defend the USSR while building opposition to the Stalinist dictatorship.

[manic expression]

lol! When did I tell a lie?
When you said Getty was a Stalinist.


Proving, I think you mean, not disproving. You see Trots have never disputed that they wanted political revolution in the USSR. Trotsky said it many times.

However it was a long term goal to see the masses push away the rotten Stalinist leadership. There was no plot in the 1930s. You can have socialism without the mass consciousness required.
:laugh: Nice try, but you're disproving yourself again. You just admitted that Trotskyists in the USSR wanted to overthrow the leadership of the Soviet Union, and that they were willing and ready to work towards that goal. Therefore, the Trotskyists in the USSR sought to destroy the Soviet leadership. Thus, the Soviet leadership had no choice but to address this threat.


In 1933 the Stalinists allowed the Nazis to take power.
Blah blah off-topic lies and tangential nonsense. Anyway, thanks for proving me right above.

[manic expression]

Trotskyists did not want to overthrow the state -- just replace the government. There is a huge difference. And there are certainly ways of defeating political opponents shy of exterminating them.
To the government and the workers who supported that government, it makes very little difference. Trotskyists weren't merely a political opposition but one that wanted to get rid of the leadership. This is not a "free speech" issue anymore but one that arguably includes intended subversion.


And I don't understand why you, in an organization that traces its beginnings to Trotsky and LO, take such a cavalier attitude toward Stalin's purges. I guess the WWP and PSL have finally morphed into simply Stalinist parties.
I don't take a cavalier attitude, I just want to understand why they happened beyond the "Stalin was a mean person" conceptualization of the event.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2409250#post2409250)
"lol! When did I tell a lie? "
When you said Getty was a Stalinist.


What I originally said was:

"Getty is an anti-Satlinist? I thought he was a sympathiser. "




"Proving, I think you mean, not disproving. You see Trots have never disputed that they wanted political revolution in the USSR. Trotsky said it many times.

However it was a long term goal to see the masses push away the rotten Stalinist leadership. There was no plot in the 1930s. You can have socialism without the mass consciousness required. "


:laugh: Nice try, but you're disproving yourself again. You just admitted that Trotskyists in the USSR wanted to overthrow the leadership of the Soviet Union, and that they were willing and ready to work towards that goal. Therefore, the Trotskyists in the USSR sought to destroy the Soviet leadership. Thus, the Soviet leadership had no choice but to address this threat.


Lol. The fact that Trotsky wanted the regime overthrown has been public knowledge since 1933. It doesnt mean the charges of terorism and so on, whatever they were, were justified. Do you know what the actual charges were? It wasn't just working towards overthrow of the regime. You need to find out what the actual charges were and whether there was any evidence. This is the key.

It's a bit like this. The CIA kills you tomorrow. They say, well he wanted a socialist revolution, he was plotting insurrection.

Are the CIA justified in shooting you for your socialist beliefs?



Blah blah off-topic lies and tangential nonsense. Anyway, thanks for proving me right above.
facts not lies. We even had one Stalinist on here recently saying it would have been seen as not a bad thing for the Nazis to take power.

Fact is the worlds biggest proletariat allowed the fascists to take over and the main crime was the Stalinists social fascism policy.

[manic expression]

What I originally said was:

"Getty is an anti-Satlinist? I thought he was a sympathiser. "
If only you had just said that...but you didn't.


Lol. The fact that Trotsky wanted the regime overthrown has been public knowledge since 1933. It doesnt mean the charges of terorism and so on, whatever they were, were justified. Do you know what the actual charges were? It wasn't just working towards overthrow of the regime. You need to find out what the actual charges were and whether there was any evidence. This is the key.
The charges had nothing to do with opposition to the Soviet Union? Are you saying the charges were entirely unrelated to that?


It's a bit like this. The CIA kills you tomorrow. They say, well he wanted a socialist revolution, he was plotting insurrection.

Are the CIA justified in shooting you for your socialist beliefs?
If the US were in a crisis it would probably take actions to target those opposed to it. Justification cannot be given since it would be doing it to preserve private property, which did not exist in the USSR at the time (something that Trotsky expressly argued). Thus, the comparison is meaningless, just as your politics.


facts not lies. We even had one Stalinist on here recently saying it would have been seen as not a bad thing for the Nazis to take power.
Yes, because what one person who you call a "Stalinist" says defines Soviet policy circa 1930. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Fact is the worlds biggest proletariat allowed the fascists to take over and the main crime was the Stalinists social fascism policy.
No, it wasn't the main crime, the main crime was what the fascists were doing, stop apologizing for Hitler.

The "Stalinists" fought fascism better than any Trotskyist ever did. I know the facts make you mad, but that's how it goes.

[daft punk]

If only you had just said that...but you didn't.

The rest of what I said was based on a google search.



The charges had nothing to do with opposition to the Soviet Union? Are you saying the charges were entirely unrelated to that?

Stop beating about the bush. Find out what some of the specific accusations were and let's examine the evidence. They were shot for opposing the regime, but all sorts of lies were made up to justify it.




No, it wasn't the main crime, the main crime was what the fascists were doing, stop apologizing for Hitler.

stop talking nonsense



The "Stalinists" fought fascism better than any Trotskyist ever did. I know the facts make you mad, but that's how it goes.

lol. support this fantasy.

explain how the KPD' alliance with the Nazis in 1931 helped.

explain how their division of the working class in half helped.

[manic expression]

The rest of what I said was based on a google search.
And it shows.


Stop beating about the bush. Find out what some of the specific accusations were and let's examine the evidence. They were shot for opposing the regime, but all sorts of lies were made up to justify it.
They weren't shot merely for opposing "the regime", else it wouldn't have taken "the regime" about a dozen years to do it.


stop talking nonsense
Well argued. :lol: Face it, you're trying to rationalize Nazi culpability by shoving responsibility onto those who were fighting them in the streets and in the trenches.


explain how the KPD' alliance with the Nazis in 1931 helped.
Explain how they were allied with the alliance and when, and then explain how that was the biggest contribution to the Nazi takeover.


explain how their division of the working class in half helped.
Explain how the social democrats represented the interests of the workers.

[Anderson]

These famous senior comrades definitely indulged in selfish power games and we are paying for that till the current generation with confusion and division in our ranks.

Now if they ( Stalin or Trotsky or both ) did make blunders / sabotages then they are to blame for providing wonderful fodder to anti- communist propagandists.

However, if there are half truths and planted stories making us discuss over and over for 100 years then hats off to the intelligent people who work for spreading the anti- communist propaganda.

These guys did whatever they had to in their lifetime but have made quite a few generations of leftists stagnant in theory and practice, left to defend their actions or inactions using bourgeois reference material about incidents and accusations.

Personality cult, individual aspirations and self comfort are still rampant in all left organizations and communist parties in the world.:(

[Kassad]

You are a liar, I proved it, you didnt reply, end of.

Kassad
Truth Lies, No Matter How Bitter
Forum Moderator
Global Moderator

Did you start hitting the bottle early today or do you always life in a delirious state? Seriously curious here.

[daft punk]

They weren't shot merely for opposing "the regime", else it wouldn't have taken "the regime" about a dozen years to do it.

Support



Well argued. :lol: Face it, you're trying to rationalize Nazi culpability by shoving responsibility onto those who were fighting them in the streets and in the trenches.


The Stalinists refused to work with the social democratic workers. If fact the KPD even had a brief alliance with the Nazis. Anyway, the working class was basically split in half. Trotsky urged the workers to unite against fascism, the KPD said no, until it was too late. The KPD had had an alliance with the SPD for years, but stopped it just at the wrong time, and so the Nazis took power. This terrible situation can be blamed on the KPD fairly and squarely.

Dont make yourself look like a fool by trying to somehow interpret this as me 'apologizing for Hitler'. It's fucking ludicrous. Stop it now.

Your lot was responsible for the Nazis taking power and if they had got the workers united the fascists would not have been able to take power.

United, the KPD and SPD would have been stronger and had more votes than the fascists.




"explain how the KPD' alliance with the Nazis in 1931 helped. "

Explain how they were allied with the alliance and when, and then explain how that was the biggest contribution to the Nazi takeover.


The KPD had an electoral alliance with the Nazis. It was called the Red Referendum or the red plebiscite. Trotsky said it would go down in revolutionary text books as what not to do. It damaged the KPDs credibility and later when the KPD tried to form an alliance with the SPD they just looked stupid as they had just conspired with the Nazis against the SPD.

read this
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3701
and this
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm



Explain how the social democrats represented the interests of the workers.

Their leaders were useless but the workers still wanted to fight fascism. The communist and social democratic workers could have united, with or without the SPD leaders. Trotsky wanted the workers to unite, and that included any parties that had workers in plus trade unions and so on, against the fascists. This was not a Popular Front he advocated, simply a United one, which just means joint action.

The KPD could have appealed to all rank and file workers to take part in united action to organise and stop the fascists.

But the leaders of both parties allowed the Nazis into power.

Have a look at the two links and if you want real detail read some of Trotskys articles which are in one of the links.

Trotsky 1931:

"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."

[daft punk]

Did you start hitting the bottle early today or do you always life in a delirious state? Seriously curious here.
You know perfectly well what I am talking about, you told lies, I proved it, in detail, you did not respond to that. Admit it and stop going on about it and repeating lies I already debunked.

[manic expression]

Support
Are you claiming the purges happened in 1926? :laugh:


The Stalinists refused to work with the social democratic workers.
Wrong, the communists of Germany didn't want to work with the pro-imperialist, anti-worker bourgeois leadership of the social democrats. You, the pro-capitalist that you are (since you think capitalism is a "free" society :lol:), think that working with the bourgeoisie is good.


Dont make yourself look like a fool by trying to somehow interpret this as me 'apologizing for Hitler'. It's fucking ludicrous.
It is "fucking ludicrous", so I suggest you stop trying to shift blame from Hitler onto the communists that fought and died to oppose him.


Your lot was responsible for the Nazis taking power
There you go again. "My lot" fought the Nazis in the streets and in the trenches...while your lot was picking their boogers and flicking them.


United, the KPD and SPD would have been stronger and had more votes than the fascists.
Yes, because electoral politics determines everything! Let's sell out Marxism for votes, that's the way forward! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


The KPD had an electoral alliance with the Nazis. It was called the Red Referendum or the red plebiscite.
That was a.) a result of the SPD refusing to form an alliance with the KPD, something you hold didn't happen (so you're already wrong once again, thanks for that) and b.) an attempt to get the SPD out of power in Prussia. Not exactly what you're saying, is it.


Their leaders were useless but the workers still wanted to fight fascism. The communist and social democratic workers could have united, with or without the SPD leaders.
Talk about naivete. You think leadership is irrelevant to the question of political forces? Funny how you mewl from here to there about the question of who was in what position in the USSR but when it comes to the bourgeois leadership of German social democrats (the same ones who formed the fascist militias in the first place) you don't think it matters. Hilarious, truly hilarious.

[daft punk]

Are you claiming the purges happened in 1926? :laugh:

Yes, they started back around 1926-7. There was violence and intimidation back then. Joffe was denied medical treatment. LO people couldnt get jobs. Trotsky was kicked out around the end of 1927 along with the rest of the LO.

Now, address the subject for once. The supposed Trotskyist sabotages. They did not exist, admit it. You have nothing, no evidence.



Wrong, the communists of Germany didn't want to work with the pro-imperialist, anti-worker bourgeois leadership of the social democrats. You, the pro-capitalist that you are (since you think capitalism is a "free" society :lol:), think that working with the bourgeoisie is good.

pathetic. You are just floundering. I am talking about uniting the working class and you have to translate that as working with the bourgeois. What makes it so ridiculous is that apart from 1928-34, Stalinist policy was always that of working with the bourgeois.



It is "fucking ludicrous", so I suggest you stop trying to shift blame from Hitler onto the communists that fought and died to oppose him.

We all know that Hitler was a bad guy, you dont need to remind me. It is not shifting the blame, the KPD should have fought the Nazis. They did not.



There you go again. "My lot" fought the Nazis in the streets and in the trenches...while your lot was picking their boogers and flicking them.

how old are you? I have no doubt many communists fought in the street, but if the social democrat workers were with them side by side, organised, there would have been more than twice as many of them.




Yes, because electoral politics determines everything! Let's sell out Marxism for votes, that's the way forward! :laugh::laugh::laugh:



Lets just piss about and let the Nazis take power.



That was a.) a result of the SPD refusing to form an alliance with the KPD, something you hold didn't happen (so you're already wrong once again, thanks for that) and b.) an attempt to get the SPD out of power in Prussia. Not exactly what you're saying, is it.

Ah, so you do know that the KPD tried for an alliance with the SPD. So why are you banging on about what a bad idea it would be? You just contradicted all the stuff you wrote earlier about working with the bourgeoisie! They did try a couple of times, but it was too late the second time, they had social fascism initially, and then the red referendum. It's no surprise they never got it together.





Talk about naivete. You think leadership is irrelevant to the question of political forces? Funny how you mewl from here to there about the question of who was in what position in the USSR but when it comes to the bourgeois leadership of German social democrats (the same ones who formed the fascist militias in the first place) you don't think it matters. Hilarious, truly hilarious.

If the KPD had not had 'social fascism', and had not had the red referendum, they could have won an alliance with German workers. That might have forced the SPD leaders into supporting the united front.

Russia in the 1920 was very different. There was only one party, it was a backward country. But yeah, you are right, it was largely down to the objective conditions.

In Germany the subjective factor was critical and that was lacking in the KPD leadership.

You would have to read one or two of the Trotsky articles to see what he said exactly re the SPD leadership, and remember it was a fluid situation.

[Kassad]

You know perfectly well what I am talking about, you told lies, I proved it, in detail, you did not respond to that. Admit it and stop going on about it and repeating lies I already debunked.

You realize that literally no one takes you seriously, right? You've literally redefined temper tantrums for RevLeft.

[daft punk]

You realize that literally no one takes you seriously, right? You've literally redefined temper tantrums for RevLeft.

I post about politics. You post personal attacks and lies. Then you run when you are exposed. Then you repeat them.

Each to his own.

Happy days.