What exactly Trotsky would do differently?

[Blanquist]

What-concrete-things-would-Trotsky-do-differently?

So-far-from-his-writings-I-see;

1.) Trotsky-promised-to-have-allowed-abortions,,as-opposed-to-Stalin's-barbaric-anti-abortion-policies

But-what-other-concrete-things-did-he-mention?

Note;--my-space-bar-doesn't-work-and-it-takes-to-much-time-to-use-the-on-screen-keyboard.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Presumably he would have had a smaller bureaucracy than Stalin, less purges, and a higher focus on "rights" and so forth (at least according to his writings).

[JAM]

Presumably he would have had a smaller bureaucracy than Stalin, less purges, and a higher focus on "rights" and so forth (at least according to his writings).

Are you certain about it? Trotsky actions while he had political power and responsibilities don't seem to indicate that, on the contrary.

It's very easy to say that you would have done differently when you don't have any political responsibility.

[Blanquist]

Presumably he would have had a smaller bureaucracy than Stalin, less purges, and a higher focus on "rights" and so forth (at least according to his writings).

not-true.

he-said-he-would-purge-more-people-then-a-capitalist-restoration

he-was-right-when-he-said-all-bureaucrats-would-continue-serving-under-capitalists-but-he-said-he-would-purge-them-mercilessly.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Where did he say he would purge more people and what actions are you referring to?

[JAM]

Where did he say he would purge more people and what actions are you referring to?

Trade Unions issue rings the bell?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Trade Unions issue rings the bell?

Not really,I don't study Trotsky so I wouldn't know.

[Blanquist]

Not really,I don't study Trotsky so I wouldn't know.

He-said-if-capitalism-replaced-stalinism-then-there-would-be-a-tiny-purge-because-the-great-majority-of-stalinists-would-support-capitalist-restoration-

but-if-trotskyism-overthrew-stalinsim-then-a-massive-purge-would-take-place-all-down-the-line.

[ComradeOm]

It's unlikely that collectivisation would have gone ahead, in the form that it did at least. That's a few million lives saved right there

[jookyle]

No one can say for sure what he would have done differently. We can only guess as to what would have happened according to Stalins policies Trotsky was in opposition to. We also have to remember that Stalin and Trotsky agreed on more than they disagreed. They really didn't start to go at each other until Stalin became head of the party and started conducting the programme the way he did.

[Caj]

The content would have been the same. Russia's material conditions necessitated the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship and the re-institution of capitalism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The content would have been the same. Russia's material conditions necessitated the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship and the re-institution of capitalism.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I think also Stalin's decisions within those material conditions caused the degeneration as well. I agree though, the overall content would have been extremely similar.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The content would have been the same. Russia's material conditions necessitated the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship and the re-institution of capitalism.

This. Had Trotsky come to power rather than Stalin the same things would have happened.

[Brosip Tito]

This. Had Trotsky come to power rather than Stalin the same things would have happened.
The same basic outcome? Yes.

The same things? No.

As well, I feel the need to add that, had the German revolution been successful, the Russian revolution would have been successful.

[jookyle]

As well, I feel the need to add that, had the German revolution been successful, the Russian revolution would have been successful.


I couldn't agree with this statement enough. I was actually just thinking today about writing an essay on just that.

[Robespierres Neck]

He would have collapsed it sooner than Gorbachev.


He-said-if-capitalism-replaced-stalinism-then-there-would-be-a-tiny-purge-because-the-great-majority-of-stalinists-would-support-capitalist-restoration-

but-if-trotskyism-overthrew-stalinsim-then-a-massive-purge-would-take-place-all-down-the-line.

And people wonder why the Marxist-Leninsts in the USSR wanted to liquidate the Trotskyist movement.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The same basic outcome? Yes.

The same things? No.

As well, I feel the need to add that, had the German revolution been successful, the Russian revolution would have been successful.

I disagree with this.
The profit mode had not exhausted it's potential for growth in 1918, it hasn't in 2012.
Interesting that you think that the Russian revolution didn't establish a proletarian dictatorship but that it would have been successful if the German one had been successful.

[jookyle]

I disagree with this.
The profit mode had not exhausted it's potential for growth in 1918, it hasn't in 2012.
Interesting that you think that the Russian revolution didn't establish a proletarian dictatorship but that it would have been successful if the German one had been successful.

I don't think that the case is there wasn't a dictatorship of the proletarian but that it would have lasted.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't think that the case is there wasn't a dictatorship of the proletarian but that it would have lasted.

He stated in the "Marxism in the 21st century" thread that the USSR was never a proletarian state.

[Brosip Tito]

I disagree with this.
The profit mode had not exhausted it's potential for growth in 1918, it hasn't in 2012.
Interesting that you think that the Russian revolution didn't establish a proletarian dictatorship but that it would have been successful if the German one had been successful.
Would it have achieved socialism right away? No, I think not.

Where did I say it wasn't a proletarian democracy? I believe that it was in the beginning.

And yes, the victory of the working class in one of the most advanced capitalist nations, Germany, would have had substantial impacts on material conditions of the Soviet Union, and the world.

[ComradeOm]

This. Had Trotsky come to power rather than Stalin the same things would have happened.I may come back to this later but a quick comment while I'm in the mood...

I do hate this deterministic attitude that everything that has been must have been. That you can rotate out Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or whoever and everything would have been the same. That's not how history works. Different people with different policies lead to different results. Just because they faced the same challenges under the same material conditions does not mean that "the same things would have happened"

A different collectivisation programme, a different approach to industry, a different intra-Party democratic process, a different approach to state building, a different stance on squeezing the proletariat, etc, etc... these are all things that could have profoundly shaped the USSR. I don't believe that Trotsky would have done all these and I don't believe that the result would have been a socialist society but to write off these potential differences as negligible is just silly

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Trotsky would have most certainly not been like Stalin had the Soviet Union had the misfortune to have him as leader. Believing that everyone reacts the same to the same material conditions is just as anti-materialistic as believing that men can single handedly change the entire course of history without reacting to the material conditions present. Stalin and Trotsky did indeed have to react to the same material conditions, but to think that they had to react in the same exact way is stupid. Marx said that the idea revolves around matter, but not that the idea no long exists. Ideas are formed from observations of matter, but not everyone comes up with the same conclusions concerning said material conditions. Trotsky had a radically different vision for the Soviet Union and communist movement than Stalin, especially after Stalin took power (hint hint *jealousy*). Trotsky would have probably invaded some other nation in an attempt to "spread socialism"; caused the return of war communism by starting wars; gone through with his psychotic super-industrialization, which would have killed millions more than Stalin "did"; and would have basically just destroyed the Soviet Union in a matter of a few years. It would have been a pathetic mess.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I may come back to this later but a quick comment while I'm in the mood...

I do hate this deterministic attitude that everything that has been must have been. That you can rotate out Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or whoever and everything would have been the same. That's not how history works. Different people with different policies lead to different results. Just because they faced the same challenges under the same material conditions does not mean that "the same things would have happened"

A different collectivisation programme, a different approach to industry, a different intra-Party democratic process, a different approach to state building, a different stance on squeezing the proletariat, etc, etc... these are all things that could have profoundly shaped the USSR. I don't believe that Trotsky would have done all these and I don't believe that the result would have been a socialist society but to write off these potential differences as negligible is just silly

I think (although I can only speak for myself) that the material situation in Russia would have caused a similar result no matter who was in power but that Stalin's choices within these conditions caused the huge swelling of the state to have to form, and which is why he and his policies should be condemned. In a way, I agree with you.

[Brosip Tito]

Trotsky would have most certainly not been like Stalin had the Soviet Union had the misfortune to have him as leader. Believing that everyone reacts the same to the same material conditions is just as anti-materialistic as believing that men can single handedly change the entire course of history without reacting to the material conditions present. Stalin and Trotsky did indeed have to react to the same material conditions, but to think that they had to react in the same exact way is stupid. Marx said that the idea revolves around matter, but not that the idea no long exists. Ideas are formed from observations of matter, but not everyone comes up with the same conclusions concerning said material conditions. Trotsky had a radically different vision for the Soviet Union and communist movement than Stalin, especially after Stalin took power (hint hint *jealousy*). Trotsky would have probably invaded some other nation in an attempt to "spread socialism"; caused the return of war communism by starting wars; gone through with his psychotic super-industrialization, which would have killed millions more than Stalin "did"; and would have basically just destroyed the Soviet Union in a matter of a few years. It would have been a pathetic mess.This is the dumbest shit I've read all day.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is the dumbest shit I've read all day.

Oh, Jesus! I guess it's time to kill myself because some random pseudo-leftist on the internet told me what I wrote is shit. :rolleyes:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Believing that everyone reacts the same to the same material conditions is just as anti-materialistic as believing that men can single handedly change the entire course of history without reacting to the material conditions present
Then you go on and say...

Trotsky would have probably invaded some other nation in an attempt to "spread socialism"; caused the return of war communism by starting wars; gone through with his psychotic super-industrialization, which would have killed millions more than Stalin "did"; and would have basically just destroyed the Soviet Union in a matter of a few years. It would have been a pathetic mess.

Really? He would single-handedly destroy the Soviet Union, would he? I smell a contradiction ;)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Then you go on and say...


Really? He would single-handedly destroy the Soviet Union, would he? I smell a contradiction ;)

I knew someone would bring that up, so I made sure to add this in. Apparently, you missed it:

Believing that everyone reacts the same to the same material conditions is just as anti-materialistic as believing that men can single handedly change the entire course of history without reacting to the material conditions present.

[Brosip Tito]

Oh, Jesus! I guess it's time to kill myself because some random pseudo-leftist on the internet told me what I wrote is shit. :rolleyes:
I always knew you Stalinists disliked Marxism, but to call it "pseudo-leftism"? Come off it.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I always knew you Stalinists disliked Marxism, but to call it "pseudo-leftism"? Come off it.

Too bad you're not really a Marxist. Sorry, you are an idealistic "Roosterist".

[Brosip Tito]

Too bad you're not really a Marxist. Sorry, you are an idealistic "Roosterist".I follow the line laid down by glorious leader Rooster! Indeed!!!!!!!!!

That of Marxism-Roosterism! YOU SHALL RESPECT THE COCK, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN IT!

**Que military parade of Roosters**

Do go on to inform me as to how glorious awesome leader comrade Rooster and our ideology of Marxism-Roosterism is "idealist"...

[jookyle]

I'm quite literally LOL-ing

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I'm quite literally LOL-ing

Laughing is good for you. Keep on doing it, Trot.

[Caj]

I do hate this deterministic attitude that everything that has been must have been. That you can rotate out Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or whoever and everything would have been the same. That's not how history works. Different people with different policies lead to different results. Just because they faced the same challenges under the same material conditions does not mean that "the same things would have happened"

A different collectivisation programme, a different approach to industry, a different intra-Party democratic process, a different approach to state building, a different stance on squeezing the proletariat, etc, etc... these are all things that could have profoundly shaped the USSR. I don't believe that Trotsky would have done all these and I don't believe that the result would have been a socialist society but to write off these potential differences as negligible is just silly

What I said is that the content, i.e., the general historical development, would have been identical had Trotsky replaced Stalin historically. This much cannot be denied without descending into the bourgeois-idealism of "great man" "history." Undoubtedly the form, i.e., the specific characteristics of Soviet historical development, would have differed if Trotsky had replaced Stalin historically. I don't think anybody denies this.


Too bad you're not really a Marxist. Sorry, you are an idealistic "Roosterist".

And don't forget revisionist. And ultra-leftist. Oh, and opportunist. Seriously, do you ever actually explain why others are "revisionists," "idealists," or whatever, or do you just assert that they are ad nauseum as if it's a valid argument on its own?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

And don't forget revisionist. And ultra-leftist. Oh, and opportunist. Seriously, do you ever actually explain why others are "revisionists," "idealists," or whatever, or do you just assert that they are ad nauseum as if it's a valid argument on its own?

1. I would never call him a revisionist. That is a term I reserve for Brezhnevites and their ideological kin.

2. There is no reason for me to call him an opportunist.

3. He is idealistic because he believes that Trotsky had to react like Stalin, ignoring the fact that people react differently to the same material conditions.

[Caj]

He is idealistic because he believes that Trotsky had to react like Stalin, ignoring the fact that people react differently to the same material conditions.

Of course different individuals react differently to the same material conditions, but single individuals don't make history. If you think the general historical development of the Soviet Union would have differed had Trotsky replaced Stalin hitorically, you are the idealist.

[Caj]

1. I would never call him a revisionist. That is a term I reserve for Brezhnevites and their ideological kin.

2. There is no reason for me to call him an opportunist.

Fair enough, but you still forgot to call him an ultra-leftist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Fair enough, but you still forgot to call him an ultra-leftist.

I have cut down my use of that word by 75%.

[A Marxist Historian]

The content would have been the same. Russia's material conditions necessitated the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship and the re-institution of capitalism.

If the revolution remained isolated, yes.

The whole idea of the Bolshevik Revolution, according to Lenin and Trotsky, was as a springboard to European and then world workers revolution.

With Trotsky "in charge," that would have been vastly more possible than under Stalin.

could Trotsky and other real revolutionaries held off the tides of bureaucratic degeneration long enough for the revolution to spread? We'll never know.

If things could have been kept going till the Great Depression, I think it is inconceivable that Hitler could have come to power without the aid given him by Stalin's criminal insanely sectarian policies in Germany. In which case, given the depths of the crisis, Germany would almost certainly have gone communist, and everything would be different.

-M.H.-

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The same basic outcome? Yes.

The same things? No.

As well, I feel the need to add that, had the German revolution been successful, the Russian revolution would have been successful.

So what?! Once the Bolsheviks found out about the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Lenin immediately wrote a letter to Munich giving them some tips. By the time it got to bavaria, the whole leadership of the communist party of bavaria had been murdered by the Freikorps capital mercenary troops or executed by the bourgeois state.

Could Trotsky travel faster than letters?


EDIT: By the way, those politicians responsible for the bloody and violent destruction of the Bavarian Soviet Republic as well as Spartakus in Berlin, were the German Social Democrats, SPD and the Social Democrats like Noske which the Trotskyists wanted to ally with against fascism. Ridiculous...

[JAM]

A different collectivisation programme, a different approach to industry,

In opposition to Lenin’s plan for industrialization that was adopted in 1925 by the Fourteenth Congress, members from the Left, notably Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, demanded for rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry. Their other demands included accelerating industrialization, raising the prices of industrial goods, lowering the prices of agricultural products, increasing taxes on the peasantry, and raising the workers’ wages independently of the rate of increase of labor productivity.

"They wanted to fix the prices of industrial products at levels much higher than the prices the state paid for farm produce so as to achieve "primitive socialist accumulation".



a different intra-Party democratic process,

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.

In this Congress it was approved the ban of factions within the Bolshevik Party with Trotsky approval.


a different approach to state building,

"Being the Commissar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he (Trotsky) saw a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions."

"Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks". Lenin said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above."


a different stance on squeezing the proletariat, etc, etc...

"If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers". In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labor ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

Trotsky's speech 30. March 1920 at the 9th party congress


PS: The best way to see what Trotsky would have done differently isn't looking at what he written while he was in exile without any kind of political responsibility or function but rather at what Trotsky done while he was a member of the Bolshevik Party and had political responsibilities de facto.

[Brosip Tito]

So what?! Once the Bolsheviks found out about the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Lenin immediately wrote a letter to Munich giving them some tips. By the time it got to bavaria, the whole leadership of the communist party of bavaria had been murdered by the Freikorps capital mercenary troops or executed by the bourgeois state.What does this have to do with anything?


Could Trotsky travel faster than letters?No? I don't see where your going with this?



EDIT: By the way, those politicians responsible for the bloody and violent destruction of the Bavarian Soviet Republic as well as Spartakus in Berlin, were the German Social Democrats, SPD and the Social Democrats like Noske which the Trotskyists wanted to ally with against fascism. Ridiculous...Well yes, the German SPD did indeed bring about the end of the Spartakusbund, as well as Luxemburg and Liebknecht.

It seems that the ilk in the "Revolutionary Marxist" tendency, have a grave misunderstanding of the composition, and purpose of the United Front.

Did the membership, or the bureacrats of the SPD kill the spartakusbund and Luxemburg/Liebknecht?

Because it is the party membership and core that the Unite Front wishes to "ally with", from my understanding.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What does this have to do with anything?

No? I don't see where your going with this?


Well yes, the German SPD did indeed bring about the end of the Spartakusbund, as well as Luxemburg and Liebknecht.

It seems that the ilk in the "Revolutionary Marxist" tendency, have a grave misunderstanding of the composition, and purpose of the United Front.

Did the membership, or the bureacrats of the SPD kill the spartakusbund and Luxemburg/Liebknecht?

Because it is the party membership and core that the Unite Front wishes to "ally with", from my understanding.

It has to do with reality, that you really cant do a lot about revolutions in other countries besides give them some tips.
I am going with this to point out that even the great Internationalist Trotsky could not have helped the World Revolution in this situation, as reality differs from nice visions of world revolution, which we all of course want.

The party membership? How do you want to get to them, by taking over the capitalist press that influence them to think Hitler was a "great fighter for the german people"? Social-Democrats were some of the most enthusiast fascists here in WW2. "Wer hat uns Verraten? SozialDemokraten!"

[Omsk]

Those who say that Trotsky would have been less "strict" (Ie no purges.) as the 'leader' of the USSR are absolutely wrong,there are reports of him being quite used to violence and executions during the Civil War,there are a lot of written claims about such behaviour. - Had not Trotsky ordered every tenth man in his troops to be shot when the troops fell back in the civil war?
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 309

There are a lot of similar stories:

As Joel Carmichael writes:
"Trotsky also gave full expression to the ferocity inherent in civil war; in the nature of things anything short of the death penalty can be thought rectifiable by the victory of one's own side.
Trotsky's wholehearted identification with an Idea made him implacable--"merciless" was a favorite word of his own. He had a certain admiral (Shchastny) executed on an indictment of sabotage. This admiral had been appointed by the Bolsheviks themselves; he had saved the Baltic Sea Fleet from the Germans and with great difficulty brought it from Helsingfors to Kronstadt and the mouth of the Neva. He was very popular among the sailors; because of his strong position vis-a-vis the new regime he behaved quite independently. This is what annoyed Trotsky, who was, in fact, the only witness to appear against him, and who denounced him without itemizing any charges; he simply said in court that [Shchastny] was a dangerous state criminal who ought to be mercilessly punished....
Trotsky also instituted a savage general measure-- the keeping of hostages: he had a register made up of the families of officers fighting at the fronts."
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 105

Another well-known incident was his taking of harsh reprisals against a regiment that abandoned its position without orders. Trotsky ordered not only the commander and the commissar but also every tenth Red Army man in the regiment to be shot.
Through such severity Trotsky accumulated many enemies among party and military workers.
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 105

After the battle [with Wrangel], Trotsky is said to have ordered the execution of the surviving 5000 Makhno followers.
Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993, p. 134

Trotsky had not shrunk from using terror in the Civil War; but he can be said to have been as little fond of it as a surgeon is fond of bloodshed.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 292

(The recollection that Trotsky had had a Communist commissar, Panteleev, shot was also very much alive among the Old Bolsheviks.)
Nekrich and Heller. Utopia in Power. New York: Summit Books, c1986, p. 161


Trotsky also suggested that Stalin must be removed trough violent means. And while he did not explicitly say what he had on his mind,it is almost absolutely sure that he would have slaughtered all those who had a connection to Stalin. Nothing stands as proof that he would act as the lenient 'leader' - but everything is in place to prove that he would have purged the "Stalinists" he wrote against so much.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Too bad you're not really a Marxist. Sorry, you are an idealistic "Roosterist".

Roosterism is the highest development of Marxism created thus far, you fool! Anti-anti-revisionism forever!

[Geiseric]

Well trotsky would have liquidated the kulaks earlier and started the industrialisation, comintern would have pushed for united working class fronts instead of popular fronts with bourgeois parties, and the purges of the bolshevik party wouldn't of happened, if anything it would of been against the opportunist bureaucracy which Stalin represented as the head of the center opposition.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well trotsky would have liquidated the kulaks earlier and started the industrialisation, comintern would have pushed for united working class fronts instead of popular fronts with bourgeois parties, and the purges of the bolshevik party wouldn't of happened, if anything it would of been against the opportunist bureaucracy which Stalin represented as the head of the center opposition.

Have you even read this thread, or did you just come to post your propaganda that one cares about?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I couldn't resist.

Trotsky advocated "worker's democracy".legalizing non-Bolshevik worker's parties and restore democracy to the Soviets

A gradual and more human collectivization of agriculture.

A revolutionary foreign policy-not pushing for the disastrous class collaborationist policies which were inflicted on the CCP and the insane Third Period policies pushed on the KPD.It is likely that this could ave avoided the rise to power of Hitler and defeated Franco in Spain. World history could have been profoundly different.

[Art Vandelay]

It does not really matter what Trotsky would of done inside the USSR, the results would of been roughly the same. All that matters is would Trotsky have played the same role as Stalin in halting the international revolution, I don't think he would have.

[JAM]

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I couldn't resist.

I couldn't resist either.


Trotsky advocated "worker's democracy"."They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.



An advise: next time read the all thread.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I couldn't resist either.

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.



An advise: next time read the all thread.

Next time engage with Trotsky's ideas (whether or not you agree with them) before presupposing what the guy might have done differently.

He admitted banning other worker's parties was a mistake.

His worker's democracy represented an alternative road the Soviet Union could have taken.


In 1934, Trotsky wrote an article entitled If America Should Go Communist:

“With us the soviets have been bureaucraticized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.” (Writings of Leon Trotsky 1934–35, New York: Pathfinder Press, 1971, p. 79)

In 1936, in The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky stated in more clear-cut fashion:

“The prohibition of oppositional parties brought after it the prohibition of factions. The prohibition of factions ended in a prohibition to think otherwise than the infallible leaders. The police-manufactured monolithism of the party resulted in a bureaucratic impunity which has become the source of all kinds of wantonness and corruption.” (Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, New York: Merit, 1965, pp. 105–105)

In 1937, in Stalinism and Bolshevism, Trotsky says in an even more peremptory fashion:

“It is absolutely indisputable that the domination of a single party served as the juridical point of departure for the Stalinist totalitarian system.” (Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism, New York: Merit, 1970, p. 22)
In 1934, Trotsky wrote an article entitled If America Should Go Communist:

“With us the soviets have been bureaucraticized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.” (Writings of Leon Trotsky 1934–35, New York: Pathfinder Press, 1971, p. 79)

and


And finally, in 1939, in his article Trotskyism and the PSOP, Trotsky clarifies and generalizes his thoughts on this issue:

“It is true that the Bolshevik Party forbade factions at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, a time of mortal danger. One can argue whether or not this was correct. The subsequent course of development has in any case proved that this prohibition served as one of the starting points of the party’s degeneration. The bureaucracy presently made a bogey of the concept of ‘faction,’ so as not to permit the party either to think or breathe. Thus was formed the totalitarian regime which killed Bolshevism.” (Leon Trotsky on France, New York: Monad Press, 1979, p. 231) [Emphasis added]

Then, a sharp warning:

“Whoever prohibits factions thereby liquidates party democracy and takes the first step toward a totalitarian regime.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1979/06/moreno.html

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Next time engage with Trotsky's ideas (whether or not you agree with them) before presupposing what the guy might have done differently.

He admitted banning other worker's parties was a mistake.

His worker's democracy represented an alternative road the Soviet Union could have taken.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Historic_events/Russian_Revolution_1917/3245

Cool, a Trot link. Not biased at all, I bet.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Check out the references Mandel uses. The purpose was to provide background on Trotsky's ideas, which is what this thread is discussing.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

2 things:

(1) People's views can change over time, so talking about a "Trotskyism" as a singular set of internally consistent views is questionable without accounting for their changing views over time.

(2) Materialism shouldn't be seen as material determinism ... material conditions would have been the same under Trotsky or Stalin, but a leader and political body can respond to those material conditions differently. If this was not the case, then there would not be debates within governments about which particular policy to pursue, and which priorities are higher. In aggregate, these decisions could well have had an impact on world history.

[Geiseric]

Comintern would have been handled much differently and the N.E.P. would have been ended sooner, I don't see how these are bad things. The rushed industrialisation would of had another 4-5 years of transition, and the Kulaks wouldn't of been able to starve the cities into submission, strengthening the bureaucracy's role as the sole organizer of resources. Many things would have been handled differently.

[JAM]

Next time engage with Trotsky's ideas (whether or not you agree with them) before presupposing what the guy might have done differently.

He admitted banning other worker's parties was a mistake.

His worker's democracy represented an alternative road the Soviet Union could have taken.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Historic_events/Russian_Revolution_1917/3245

Didn't I just quote Trotsky himself? Wasn't him talking about specifically "workers democracy"? I think he was as I showed to you.

Did he regretted when those same things that he defended turned against him? Probably he did. This is what is usually called hypocrisy, incoherence, opportunism, etc... In the case of Trotsky this words reach high levels of significance.

But look, even in exile Trotsky didn't deny the importance of the banning of factions: "It is possible to regard the decision of the Tenth Congress as a grave necessity" by Trotsky. “Factions and the Fourth International”, Writings 1935-36.

More you talk more you bury Trotsky.

[Brosip Tito]

Cool, a Trot link. Not biased at all, I bet.I'm going to start saying this everytime an ML like Ismail links something.

Except I'll say:

"Cool, a Stalinist link. Not biased at all, I bet."

[Drosophila]

Comintern would have been handled much differently and the N.E.P. would have been ended sooner, I don't see how these are bad things. The rushed industrialisation would of had another 4-5 years of transition, and the Kulaks wouldn't of been able to starve the cities into submission, strengthening the bureaucracy's role as the sole organizer of resources. Many things would have been handled differently.

My crystal ball tells me otherwise.

[JAM]

Comintern would have been handled much differently and the N.E.P. would have been ended sooner, I don't see how these are bad things. The rushed industrialisation would of had another 4-5 years of transition, and the Kulaks wouldn't of been able to starve the cities into submission, strengthening the bureaucracy's role as the sole organizer of resources. Many things would have been handled differently.

When someone tries to defend Trotsky in this thread it's just another nail in Trotsky's coffin.


The rushed industrialisation would of had another 4-5 years of transition,

"Members of the Left, notably Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, pushed for rapid industrialization."


strengthening the bureaucracy's role as the sole organizer of resources


"Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks". Lenin said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above."

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

When someone tries to defend Trotsky in this thread it's just another nail in Trotsky's coffin.



"Members of the Left, notably Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, pushed for rapid industrialization."




"Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks". Lenin said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above."

JAM, they will never listen to the voice of logic. The Trots would rather go on the stuff that Trotsky wrote while he had no political responsibilities at all (other than leading his cultish "movement" with his son) than the the stuff he wrote while he actually had some political responsibilities.

[Prometeo liberado]

I cant resist. How in the wide wide world of sports can one assume that trotsky would have been this democratic god I keep hearing about? This is the same guy that gave orders for political officers to stand in the rear and shoot retreating workers/peasant soldiers? "Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death-penalty in its arsenal". So much for Workers of the World Unite.This from what started out as an all volunteer communist army. And what would he have done different? Well which trotsky are we talking about? The one who advocated a middle road as it pertained to the future of the Second International while Lenin wisely constructed the Third? Or the trotsky who would use any tactics at his disposal to claim the Left, Right or Center whenever it suited him. Jumping from party to party. Position to position as if he were Kassad(sorry, but it fit). Eschewing old comrades in favor of new lackeys. Different? Tell me who he was and what he believed in first.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Anything that Stalin may have "accomplished", land collectivization, industrialization, Five Year plans, etc were ideas originated by Trotsky. Stalin carried out these ideas divorced from working class power and therefore in an extremely brutal deadly fashion.The economic planning interestingly, was carried out by Trotsky's followers, who, once they had served their purpose, were then killed by Stalin.

Anyway, how exactly are these 70 year old fights going to help us in finding a way forward?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Cool, a Trot link. Not biased at all, I bet.
You posted a link to the espressostalinist earlier in this thread.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

You posted a link to the espressostalinist earlier in this thread.

Well, then say something. No one is stopping you.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well, then say something. No one is stopping you.
Are your language comprehension skills that awful or do you not know what hypocrisy is?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Are your language comprehension skills that awful or do you not know what hypocrisy is?

Well, I spoke out. That doesn't mean that I'm any less biased. So . . . I don't give two shits.

[bolshie]

In opposition to Lenin’s plan for industrialization that was adopted in 1925 by the Fourteenth Congress, members from the Left, notably Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, demanded for rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry. Their other demands included accelerating industrialization, raising the prices of industrial goods, lowering the prices of agricultural products, increasing taxes on the peasantry, and raising the workers’ wages independently of the rate of increase of labor productivity.

"They wanted to fix the prices of industrial products at levels much higher than the prices the state paid for farm produce so as to achieve "primitive socialist accumulation".




"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.

In this Congress it was approved the ban of factions within the Bolshevik Party with Trotsky approval.



"Being the Commissar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he (Trotsky) saw a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions."

"Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks". Lenin said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above."



"If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers". In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labor ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

Trotsky's speech 30. March 1920 at the 9th party congress


PS: The best way to see what Trotsky would have done differently isn't looking at what he written while he was in exile without any kind of political responsibility or function but rather at what Trotsky done while he was a member of the Bolshevik Party and had political responsibilities de facto.

It's good to see someone actually quoting the person being debated in this thread, I was surprised at so many opinions with no actual quotations in the thread.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Anything that Stalin may have "accomplished", land collectivization, industrialization, Five Year plans, etc were ideas originated by Trotsky. Stalin carried out these ideas divorced from working class power and therefore in an extremely brutal deadly fashion.The economic planning interestingly, was carried out by Trotsky's followers, who, once they had served their purpose, were then killed by Stalin.

Anyway, how exactly are these 70 year old fights going to help us in finding a way forward?
In all honesty, I'm confused as to what exactly Trotsky would have done if he succeeded Lenin. Would there be much focus be on collectivization, industrialization and other internal economic feats? I've been under the impression that just about all resources would be expended in attempting to export the revolution.

Oh, and also a bit of related shameless self advertising here - my latest blog post is a set of questions related to this, would a Trot care to answer them?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He would let the Soviet Union collapse because the world revolution didn't succeed.

[bolshie]

Had not Trotsky ordered every tenth man in his troops to be shot when the troops fell back in the civil war?

I was interested in this so I googled it but couldnt find anything, have you got a quote from trtsky himself? I did find someting similar from Lenin. Aslo, if he did say it, how often was it carried out or was it mainly a threat?

[bolshie]

It does not really matter what Trotsky would of done inside the USSR, the results would of been roughly the same. All that matters is would Trotsky have played the same role as Stalin in halting the international revolution, I don't think he would have.
Stalin halted the international revolution? What about China, Eastern europe, vietnam, Korean and so on?

[Geiseric]

In all honesty, I'm confused as to what exactly Trotsky would have done if he succeeded Lenin. Would there be much focus be on collectivization, industrialization and other internal economic feats? I've been under the impression that just about all resources would be expended in attempting to export the revolution.

Oh, and also a bit of related shameless self advertising here - my latest blog post is a set of questions related to this, would a Trot care to answer them?

If you read about what the Left Opposition was supporting, you'll never once find something saying "Let's export the revolution!"

Trotsky knew that was impossible and frankly a stupid assumption, this was learned after the failure of the Polish war.

Trotsky was proposing an end to the N.E.P. which Stalin supported continuing into the late 1920s thereby strenghening the Kulak class and forcing the working class to rely more and more on the Bureaucracy, once this reliance was solidified is when the total collectivisation started.

However once production reached pre-war levels, there was no reason to keep the N.E.P. since it was Capitalism. Lenin said that it should of been abandoned at the same time as Trotsky.

[Geiseric]

Bolshie look at the late 1920s-1930s communist parties actions and they make no sense worldwide because of the revisionism the Stalinist leadership led them in away from bolshevism. The bolsheviks were never part of popular fronts, nor did they ever cooperate with the capitalists in Russia, so i don't know why else the popular front strategy would have been pushed for unless like we see with KKE today where parliament and reforming capital is the only goal.

[JAM]

If you read about what the Left Opposition was supporting, you'll never once find something saying "Let's export the revolution!"

Trotsky knew that was impossible and frankly a stupid assumption, this was learned after the failure of the Polish war.

You just admitted that Trotsky would have followed the SIOC logic.




Trotsky was proposing an end to the N.E.P. which Stalin supported continuing into the late 1920s thereby strenghening the Kulak class and forcing the working class to rely more and more on the Bureaucracy, once this reliance was solidified is when the total collectivisation started.

Stalin supported NEP because he was not a lunatic. NEP saved USSR from the economic collapse. Everybody is unanimous about this fact. NEP was dropped once it failed to industrialize USSR in a rapid manner.



However once production reached pre-war levels, there was no reason to keep the N.E.P. since it was Capitalism.

This is what happens when people speak without any knowledge about the subject.

If you knew anything about it you would know that Russia only reached its pre-war levels in 1928, the year in which NEP was dropped by Stalin. I can provide you the numbers:

Russia GDP in 1913:

232.351

USSR GDP in 1928:

231.886

I must assume that you are turning into a Stalin supporter since it's the second time your position coincides with Stalin's.


Lenin said that it should of been abandoned at the same time as Trotsky.

The only thing I remember Lenin saying anything about the length of NEP was this: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term"

[Geiseric]

Stalin by 1925 was in favor of de nationalizing the land and putting it in power of private hands, promoting capitalism.

here's a quote from an interview:
In 1925, when the course toward the kulak was in full swing, Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land. To a question asked at his suggestion by a Soviet journalist: “Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”, Stalin answered: “Yes, and even for 40 years.” The People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Georgia, upon Stalin’s own initiative, introduced the draft of a law denationalizing the land. The aim was to give the farmer confidence in his own future. While this was going on, in the spring of 1926, almost 60 per cent of the grain destined for sale was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors! The state lacked grain not only for foreign trade, but even for domestic needs. The insignificance of exports made it necessary to forego bringing in articles of manufacture, and cut down to the limit the import of machinery and raw materials.
Retarding industrialization and striking a blow at the general mass of the peasants, this policy of banking on the well-to-do farmer revealed unequivocally inside of two years, 1924-26, its political consequences.


-The Revolution Betrayed


By 1925 if the process of collectivisation started, the prices of industrial goods would go down and the entire country would benefit for the same reasons as any other "socialist," state has benefited from nationalising property, however Stalin and the future clique who would be in rule were at the time against collective farming and industrialisation.


Molotov, the future president of the Soviet of People’s Commissars, said repeatedly:
“We not slip down (!) into poor peasants illusions about the collectivization of the broad peasant masses. In the present circumstances it is no longer possible.” -1925


So it stands to logic that these men were total opportunists who only forced brutal industrialisation when the Kulaks started strangling the cities, at which point they along with the poor peasants were robbed and the remaining farmers refused to till their land. All of this could have been prevented if the lands were transfered to state property by 1925 and if the collectivisation started earlier.

[JAM]

So, basically you are calling Lenin an opportunist who "was in favor of de nationalizing the land and putting it in power of private hands, promoting capitalism" since it was Lenin who promoted NEP and who said: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term".

[bolshie]

Bolshie look at the late 1920s-1930s communist parties actions and they make no sense worldwide because of the revisionism the Stalinist leadership led them in away from bolshevism. The bolsheviks were never part of popular fronts, nor did they ever cooperate with the capitalists in Russia, so i don't know why else the popular front strategy would have been pushed for unless like we see with KKE today where parliament and reforming capital is the only goal.

Well, I was talking about after WW2 really. I'm not sure if Stalin was genuinely trying to export communism though, or just kind of expand an empire. I'm not convinced that Russia was actually communist, seeing as it was a dictatorship, as far as I know.

[bolshie]

So, basically you are calling Lenin an opportunist who "was in favor of de nationalizing the land and putting it in power of private hands, promoting capitalism" since it was Lenin who promoted NEP and who said: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term".

If Stalin was in favour of denationalising the land in 1925, obviously Lenin hadn't bothered denationaising it while he was alive. So are you sure he planned to?

[JAM]

If Stalin was in favour of denationalising the land in 1925, obviously Lenin hadn't bothered denationaising it while he was alive. So are you sure he planned to?

Wasn't land denationalized during NEP? I think so.

Didn't Lenin say "The NEP is in earnest and long-term"? I also think so.

It's too hard to sum one plus one?

[bolshie]

How can you talk of denationalising something if it's already been denationalised?

[JAM]

Bolshie look at the late 1920s-1930s communist parties actions and they make no sense worldwide because of the revisionism the Stalinist leadership led them in away from bolshevism. The bolsheviks were never part of popular fronts, nor did they ever cooperate with the capitalists in Russia, so i don't know why else the popular front strategy would have been pushed for unless like we see with KKE today where parliament and reforming capital is the only goal.

If so, why Trotsky advocated an alliance with SPD, the same party that allied with fascist forces to crush the communist revolution in Germany?

Let me guess: another Trotsky hypocrisy? ;)

[JAM]

How can you talk of denationalising something if it's already been denationalised?


Perhaps because the land was partially nationalized? What do you think? It's too hard to understand?

[bolshie]

Perhaps because the land was partially nationalized? What do you think? It's too hard to understand?
Fair point. I googled it to check though, and found this

"The new economic system affected property relations both in agriculture and in industry. If the peasants were to produce more food, they had to be granted a measure of security in the form of reasonably long land tenure. This was done by a series of concessions to the peasants embodied in the Land Code of 1922. Although the principle of land nationalization was reaffirmed, peasants were declared long-term tenants. Leasing of the land was allowed; later, even the hiring of additional labor (previously condemned as an evil capitalistic practice) was permitted under certain conditions. These measures led to the rapid increase in the food supply that permitted the abolition of food rationing. "



So, not exactly denationalised.

[JAM]

Fair point. I googled it to check though, and found this

"The new economic system affected property relations both in agriculture and in industry. If the peasants were to produce more food, they had to be granted a measure of security in the form of reasonably long land tenure. This was done by a series of concessions to the peasants embodied in the Land Code of 1922. Although the principle of land nationalization was reaffirmed, peasants were declared long-term tenants. Leasing of the land was allowed; later, even the hiring of additional labor (previously condemned as an evil capitalistic practice) was permitted under certain conditions. These measures led to the rapid increase in the food supply that permitted the abolition of food rationing. "





So, not exactly denationalised.


I used the term denationalized in the same context that Leon Brotsky used it. Look at the quote where he argues that Stalin was favorable to denationalizing the land:

"Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him? Yes, and even for 40 years.”

What is this but leasing the land as it was done by NEP?

The problem is that Brotsky used the term wrongly and neither I or you identified immediately the error. You might wanna correct also what you've written in the other thread about Stalin wanting to denationalizing the land in 1925.

[Sten]

The content would have been the same. Russia's material conditions necessitated the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship and the re-institution of capitalism. Historical materialism =/= fatalistic view of history.

[Geiseric]

he wanted to continue the de nationalisation, creating a class of rich peasants is what I meant.

[JAM]

he wanted to continue the de nationalisation, creating a class of rich peasants is what I meant.

The problem is that there was no denationalization of anything. Apparently, you don't know the difference between denationalizing and leasing the land. The class of rich peasants was created due to the NEP implementation by Lenin. Stalin merely supported the continuation of this policy until 1928.

[bolshie]

I used the term denationalized in the same context that Leon Brotsky used it. Look at the quote where he argues that Stalin was favorable to denationalizing the land:

"Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him? Yes, and even for 40 years.”

What is this but leasing the land as it was done by NEP?

The problem is that Brotsky used the term wrongly and neither I or you identified immediately the error. You might wanna correct also what you've written in the other thread about Stalin wanting to denationalizing the land in 1925.

Well I googled that quote and what I got was trotsky quoting it as follows

"In 1925, when the course toward the kulak was in full swing, Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land. To a question asked at his suggestion by a Soviet journalist: “Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”, Stalin answered: “Yes, and even for 40 years.” The People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Georgia, upon Stalin’s own initiative, introduced the draft of a law denationalizing the land. The aim was to give the farmer confidence in his own future. While this was going on, in the spring of 1926, almost 60 per cent of the grain destined for sale was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors! The state lacked grain not only for foreign trade, but even for domestic needs. The insignificance of exports made it necessary to forego bringing in articles of manufacture, and cut down to the limit the import of machinery and raw materials."

clearly in his opinion it was denationalisation and not just a continuation of the orihginal policies

[JAM]

Well I googled that quote and what I got was trotsky quoting it as follows

"In 1925, when the course toward the kulak was in full swing, Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land. To a question asked at his suggestion by a Soviet journalist: “Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”, Stalin answered: “Yes, and even for 40 years.” The People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Georgia, upon Stalin’s own initiative, introduced the draft of a law denationalizing the land. The aim was to give the farmer confidence in his own future. While this was going on, in the spring of 1926, almost 60 per cent of the grain destined for sale was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors! The state lacked grain not only for foreign trade, but even for domestic needs. The insignificance of exports made it necessary to forego bringing in articles of manufacture, and cut down to the limit the import of machinery and raw materials."

clearly in his opinion it was denationalisation and not just a continuation of the orihginal policies

Do you read english? What it means "to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”.

Denationalizing means hand over the land definitely and not leasing for 10 or 40 years.

[Geiseric]

The rich peasants kept the profits and the excess grain from it though, which means that it was basically their private property. As soon as rationing was ended from a resurgance in food production, the N.E.P. should have been ended and a planned economy should have been instituted. I don't see why that should be disagreed with, seeing as a planned economy is what ended up happening, albeit too late.

[JAM]

The rich peasants kept the profits and the excess grain from it though, which means that it was basically their private property.

Perhaps you wanna show this to your pal Bolshie. He was the one who hung on the term "denationalizing".


As soon as rationing was ended from a resurgance in food production, the N.E.P. should have been ended and a planned economy should have been instituted. I don't see why that should be disagreed with, seeing as a planned economy is what ended up happening, albeit too late.

It should be disagreed because USSR economy was being rebuilt due to the NEP policy and there was no reason to drop it at the time. What sense it would make drop a policy which saved USSR from the economic collapse just a couple years before? None. This was Lenin intention as well as I showed to you. Maybe you don't know this but the economic growth rates were higher during the NEP period than during the planned economy.

The only problem with NEP was that it wasn't being able to accelerate the industrialization process in USSR and Stalin realized that sooner or later the country would be invaded by capitalist countries: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us."

Therefore, a rapid industrialization became a extremely necessity for the survival of the Soviet Union which compelled Stalin to change his position and implement immediately the planned economy in USSR. Stalin prediction became a reality ten years later.

I also noticed that you change your position very quickly. First you said that NEP should have been abandoned once the pre-war production levels were reached. I proved you that was what Stalin did. Now you say that NEP should have been abandoned once the rationing ended.

[Geiseric]

The growth rates from the planned economy towered over the N.E.P! Collectivisation happened with the Planned economy even, and you need to check your facts. The N.E.P. was the opposite of the planned economy, it was allowing artificial capitalism to grow for a short amount of time and then the artificial capitalism would be dissolved, that was th philosophy Lenin had about the N.E.P. and the only ones who were REALLY in favor of it were the Bukharinites who were pretty much the forebearers of Euro "Socialism."

The N.E.P. was the opposite of what the Bolsheviks wanted to have done when the revolution happened, they didn't want to foster capitalist growth at the expense of the country any more than was meant to end the rationing of food. Their plan wasn't "Let's create huge privately owned and privately profited farms and then violently expropiate them and their laborers once the owners managed to hoard enough grain."

[JAM]

The growth rates from the planned economy towered over the N.E.P! Collectivisation happened with the Planned economy even, and you need to check your facts.

I also thought so, just like you...until I saw the statistics. Take a look at:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiEHygJGyKkFCGdF32U9jJrXMluN5Yp7rvtkUyp 3LWFNwWHFxnOWBpyfDdJDRbyURHVNVaM_V6vOnLgHJMPhzS2pt YGNj2UBBSGNdDd5kD4UKnnWU-EEZvzXL2Tg7dVanxlBveH&q=cache%3Amw0fZu97E78J%3Apages.nes.ru%2Fvpopov%2Fc ourses%2FEcon-history%26stat.ppt%20&docid=bf791581c1c50c65187aaaef46091505&a=bi&pagenumber=19&w=800

Growth rates from NEP towered over the planned economy.


The N.E.P. was the opposite of the planned economy, it was allowing artificial capitalism to grow for a short amount of time and then the artificial capitalism would be dissolved, that was th philosophy Lenin had about the N.E.P. and the only ones who were REALLY in favor of it were the Bukharinites who were pretty much the forebearers of Euro "Socialism." As far as I can remember Stalin dropped Nep a few years later and the Bukharinites were purged from the Bolshevik party. Once again your position coincides with Stalin's.


The N.E.P. was the opposite of what the Bolsheviks wanted to have done when the revolution happened, they didn't want to foster capitalist growth at the expense of the country any more than was meant to end the rationing of food. Their plan wasn't "Let's create huge privately owned and privately profited farms and then violently expropiate them and their laborers once the owners managed to hoard enough grain."If this was the case why Lenin implemented and promoted it, even saying: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term"?

[Geiseric]

you're arguing for the N.E.P. because at one point Stalin was in favor of it. So if it were up to you, since "growth rates," were high according to some graph, capitalism should of been maintained in the fSU for even longer! So you're not a Stalinist, you're a market socialist, or at least you would of been considered one in 1925.

But anyways, the N.E.P. wouldn't of allowed for the framework for the industrialisation that Russia needed, and this was proven with the grain crisis of 1927 in which half the needed amount of grain was sent to cities by the Kulak land owners, on the dawn of a year of increased industrial spending. If you support Stalin's later industrialisation, it would of made sense to do it earlier, before the grain crisis intensified things negatively.

[JAM]

you're arguing for the N.E.P. because at one point Stalin was in favor of it. So if it were up to you, since "growth rates," were high according to some graph, capitalism should of been maintained in the fSU for even longer! So you're not a Stalinist, you're a market socialist, or at least you would of been considered one in 1925.

So, according to your view Lenin was a market socialist just like Stalin. I just don't understand how I would have been a market socialist in 1925 and not a Stalinist since Stalin was in favor of NEP in 1925. A bit contradictory, don't you think?

I'm arguing for the application of NEP during the period in which it was applied. If it wasn't for the necessity for a rapid industrialization NEP should have continued for some time but the transition to a full planned economy had to come sooner or later since it's part of the revolutionary process.


But anyways, the N.E.P. wouldn't of allowed for the framework for the industrialisation that Russia needed, and this was proven with the grain crisis of 1927 in which half the needed amount of grain was sent to cities by the Kulak land owners, on the dawn of a year of increased industrial spending. If you support Stalin's later industrialisation, it would of made sense to do it earlier, before the grain crisis intensified things negatively.No, it wouldn't. If NEP was recovering the USSR's economy from the near collapse of the civil war years why it would make sense abandoned it? The problems that Stalin faced in 1928 would be the same faced in 1925 since it's not in three years that an entire class of kulaks emerges. The class struggle with the rich peasants was unavoidable.

The true is that before the grain crisis there was no reason to adopt collectivization.

EDIT: And another thing, NEP wasn't market socialism but rather state capitalism. At least it was how Lenin defined it.

[Geiseric]

So, according to your view Lenin was a market socialist just like Stalin. I just don't understand how I would have been a market socialist in 1925 and not a Stalinist since Stalin was in favor of NEP in 1925. A bit contradictory, don't you think?

I'm arguing for the application of NEP during the period in which it was applied. If it wasn't for the necessity for a rapid industrialization NEP should have continued for some time but the transition to a full planned economy had to come sooner or later since it's part of the revolutionary process.

No, it wouldn't. If NEP was recovering the USSR's economy from the near collapse of the civil war years why it would make sense abandoned it? The problems that Stalin faced in 1928 would be the same faced in 1925 since it's not in three years that an entire class of kulaks emerges. The class struggle with the rich peasants was unavoidable.

The true is that before the grain crisis there was no reason to adopt collectivization.

EDIT: And another thing, NEP wasn't market socialism but rather state capitalism. At least it was how Lenin defined it.

Lenin wasn't supportive of the N.E.P. for any longer than it ended the food shortage. I need some proof that he was in favor of fostering capitalism in the U.S.S.R. and maintaining the same mode of production as in Czarist Russia.

The rich peasants were able to benefit from the N.E.P. as they accumulated more land and power in their hands, 60% of the grain was owned and controlled by 6% of the peasant population. the continuation of it kept industrial prices higher, which stiffled the industrialisation process, and maintaining backwards economic relations.

And you admit that there was no need to industrialise untill the grain crisis? How is that not opportunism? Why not expropiate the Rich Peasants in 1925 and avoid the "unavoidable," crisis that left several million people dead?

[Sir Comradical]

I don't think he would have committed genocide against his own party.

[JAM]

Lenin wasn't supportive of the N.E.P. for any longer than it ended the food shortage. I need some proof that he was in favor of fostering capitalism in the U.S.S.R. and maintaining the same mode of production as in Czarist Russia.

I've already posted this Lenin quote several times now, I hope this will be the last: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term".

You wanna better proof than the man himself?


The rich peasants were able to benefit from the N.E.P. as they accumulated more land and power in their hands, 60% of the grain was owned and controlled by 6% of the peasant population. the continuation of it kept industrial prices higher, which stiffled the industrialisation process, and maintaining backwards economic relations.

And you admit that there was no need to industrialise untill the grain crisis? How is that not opportunism? Why not expropiate the Rich Peasants in 1925 and avoid the "unavoidable," crisis that left several million people dead?

I didn't say "need to industrialize" but to collectivize. You could have advance with the industrialization process without collectivization. Why it is opportunism?

You think that in 1925 you didn't have rich peasants already? You think that they became rich in just a period of 3 years? Of course not. You would face a struggle against the kulaks in 1925 as you faced in 1928.

[bolshie]

"In 1925, when the course toward the kulak was in full swing, Stalin began to prepare for the denationalization of the land. To a question asked at his suggestion by a Soviet journalist: “Would it not be expedient in the interest of agriculture to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”, Stalin answered: “Yes, and even for 40 years.” The People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Georgia, upon Stalin’s own initiative, introduced the draft of a law denationalizing the land. The aim was to give the farmer confidence in his own future. While this was going on, in the spring of 1926, almost 60 per cent of the grain destined for sale was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors! The state lacked grain not only for foreign trade, but even for domestic needs. The insignificance of exports made it necessary to forego bringing in articles of manufacture, and cut down to the limit the import of machinery and raw materials."


Do you read english? What it means "to deed over to each peasant for 10 years the parcel of land tilled by him?”.

Denationalizing means hand over the land definitely and not leasing for 10 or 40 years.

Well he used the word denationalisation, twice, and as one of the people running the country as an attempt at socialism you would think he would know what denationalisation means.


I've already posted this Lenin quote several times now, I hope this will be the last: "The NEP is in earnest and long-term".


You keep quoting this but what if things were done differently after he died? I googled the quote and he said it was a retreat, which implies something that is in the opposite direction to the main direction you are going.

What I'm thinking is, if Stalin was effectively talking about denationalisation, if that was a fairly big concession to the richer peasants, maybe he went too far and so had to suddenly bring in the collectivisation. You know what I mean? Sort of like maybe he let them get too big for their boots.

[JAM]

Well he used the word denationalisation, twice, and as one of the people running the country as an attempt at socialism you would think he would know what denationalisation means.

Look, you are very confused here. You presented me a document which stated that NEP implemented the leasing of land instead of denationalizing. Stalin (quoted by Trotsky) talks about in deed over land to peasants for a certain period and not indefinitely.

That means in this case Trotsky was interpreting leasing of land as denationalizing and this means that Lenin also denationalized land according to Trotskty interpretation of leasing.

The problem here is that you refuse to accept that what Stalin suggested was the continuation of the policies implemented by Lenin and I still don't understand why when it's so evident.




You keep quoting this but what if things were done differently after he died? I googled the quote and he said it was a retreat, which implies something that is in the opposite direction to the main direction you are going.

What I'm thinking is, if Stalin was effectively talking about denationalisation, if that was a fairly big concession to the richer peasants, maybe he went too far and so had to suddenly bring in the collectivisation. You know what I mean? Sort of like maybe he let them get too big for their boots.

You have a false point there as I showed to you above. Stalin was suggesting the strengthening of NEP and not something different from what Lenin implemented.

Lenin said it was a retreat, but he didn't say it was a temporary one, on the contrary, "long-term". We are led to believe that if Lenin had continued to rule USSR for longer NEP could have lasted even longer than it did with Stalin. We are here speculating of course.

[Geiseric]

see you're ignoring that there was no reason to keep it for a long time though, one mis quote from Lenin doesn't mean that he would of extended it and furthered the capitalism growing in Russia. He wanted to industrialise and collectivise, which go hand in hand once the N.E.P. was ended. there was no reason to extend it whatsoever, and those 6% of peasants who owned the 60% of grain actually did accumulate that in the un-necessary extension of the N.E.P. on top of that, as communists, why would we ever promote capitalism once the entire civil war was fought to abolish it? The N.E.P. was done as a retreat from the failed german revolution.

[JAM]

No, I'm not ignoring. I've already showed to you why there was reasons to keep NEP. If it wasn't for the threat of being invaded NEP would have continued in USSR longer than it did and rightfully so since it produced extraordinary results and recovered USSR economy. You are the one ignoring the benefits brought by NEP to USSR. It saved it from the collapse and just for that reason worth it it's application. Besides, the conflict with the Kulaks would have happened in 1925 as well.

NEP had nothing to do with the failed german revolution but rather the economic degradation of USSR's economy after War Communism and the effects of the 2 wars which devastated Russia (WWI and Civil War). It was a retreat because of the application of War Communism in the first place.

You are talking like the NEP was implemented by Stalin and not Lenin. If you are critic of NEP you are critic of the entire NEP implementation including Lenin's period and not just Stalin's period. I didn't misquote Lenin. If for you it's horrible to think that Lenin was a capitalist promoter (in your words of course) it's something that you need to overcome. Maybe if you think of Lenin as a man who made mistakes and not as some sort of a infallible religious figure it becomes easier to do that.

[bolshie]

Look, you are very confused here. You presented me a document which stated that NEP implemented the leasing of land instead of denationalizing. Stalin (quoted by Trotsky) talks about in deed over land to peasants for a certain period and not indefinitely.

That means in this case Trotsky was interpreting leasing of land as denationalizing and this means that Lenin also denationalized land according to Trotskty interpretation of leasing.

The problem here is that you refuse to accept that what Stalin suggested was the continuation of the policies implemented by Lenin and I still don't understand why when it's so evident.

Well, I just think, why would Trotsky make a point about Stalin denationalising the land if it was just a continuation of the policies they had earlier? That makes no sense. So it sounds to me like it was different enough for him to call it denationalisation.






You have a false point there as I showed to you above. Stalin was suggesting the strengthening of NEP and not something different from what Lenin implemented.

Lenin said it was a retreat, but he didn't say it was a temporary one, on the contrary, "long-term". We are led to believe that if Lenin had continued to rule USSR for longer NEP could have lasted even longer than it did with Stalin. We are here speculating of course.

I dunno, maybe Lenin would have changed the long term bit, maybe not. All I'm saying is that it sounds like one minute Stalin is looking after the peasnats and then the next minute it's forced collectivisation. It just sounds like a sudden change, as if it was forced onto Stalin rather than being planned.

[JAM]

Well, I just think, why would Trotsky make a point about Stalin denationalising the land if it was just a continuation of the policies they had earlier? That makes no sense. So it sounds to me like it was different enough for him to call it denationalisation.

Perhaps because Trotsky was opposition to Stalin and wanted to attack him harshly as he could. But if you look at Stalin's words you'll see that he talks about leasing the land and not denationalizing unless you consider leasing and denationalizing the same thing as Trotsky did.






I dunno, maybe Lenin would have changed the long term bit, maybe not. All I'm saying is that it sounds like one minute Stalin is looking after the peasnats and then the next minute it's forced collectivisation. It just sounds like a sudden change, as if it was forced onto Stalin rather than being planned.

Stalin changed his policy because of NEP's industrialization tempo that wasn't fast enough. He realized that USSR was going to be invaded sooner or later by a foreign power and therefore the Russian industrialization became an urgent necessity for the survival of USSR. At least is how I interpret his words: "We are 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!" Stalin, 1931. His prediction became a reality 10 years later.

[bolshie]

Perhaps because Trotsky was opposition to Stalin and wanted to attack him harshly as he could. But if you look at Stalin's words you'll see that he talks about leasing the land and not denationalizing unless you consider leasing and denationalizing the same thing as Trotsky did.

could be that, hard to say without more evidence. Yes I know they both talked about leasing land, I just find it strange that Trotsky would call it denationalisation if nothing changed. What was Trotsky in opposition to Stalin over, apart from accusing him of wanting to denationalise the land? In that article of Trotsk's I found when googling the denationalisation thing it said straight after the bit I quoted:
"Retarding industrialization and striking a blow at the general mass of the peasants, this policy of banking on the well-to-do farmer revealed unequivocally inside of two years, 1924-26, its political consequences."





Stalin changed his policy because of NEP's industrialization tempo that wasn't fast enough. He realized that USSR was going to be invaded sooner or later by a foreign power and therefore the Russian industrialization became an urgent necessity for the survival of USSR. At least is how I interpret his words: "We are 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!" Stalin, 1931. His prediction became a reality 10 years later.
But was the industrialisation slow because he had put his efforts into looking after the richer peasants? According to Trotsky it was, going off the quoate above.

Then he says
"In its extended platform, which took up all the problems of industry and economy, the Left Opposition wrote: “The party ought to resist and crush all tendencies directed to the annulment or undermining of the nationalization of land, one of the pillars of the proletarian dictatorship.”


On that question, the Opposition gained the day; direct attempts against nationalization were abandoned."


surely the policy under Lenin would be common knowledge? I just have this feeling that there must have been a change in direction.



The article makes interesting reading from the bit I've read anyway. He says that in 1927 Stalin scorned the idea of building a hydroelectric dam

and that the left wing advocated a 5 year plan in 1923 but were laughed at.

[JAM]

could be that, hard to say without more evidence. Yes I know they both talked about leasing land, I just find it strange that Trotsky would call it denationalisation if nothing changed. What was Trotsky in opposition to Stalin over, apart from accusing him of wanting to denationalise the land? In that article of Trotsk's I found when googling the denationalisation thing it said straight after the bit I quoted:
"Retarding industrialization and striking a blow at the general mass of the peasants, this policy of banking on the well-to-do farmer revealed unequivocally inside of two years, 1924-26, its political consequences."

The Trotsky's book that you are quoting calls "Revolution Betrayed" which was mainly an anti-Stalin work where Trotsky lashes out against Stalin's leadership. What Trotsky forgot to mention is that he betrayed the revolution as well. He and Lenin laid down the foundations of Stalin's brutal regime. Of course, he regretted that in the later stages of his live but the damage was already done and there was no way back. How we can't say that Trotsky regret was nothing more than an opportunistic maneuver to clean his past actions and present himself as a more human face of USSR as an alternative to Stalin's brutality in the eyes of the world?

Still regarding the nationalization issue, I don't have evidence that Stalin was favoring the rich peasants over the poor ones. The rich peasants were benefiting from NEP in 1925 as they were in Lenin's period. As far as I know nothing changed in NEP's orientation. Again, can be just more Trotsky rethoric against Stalin.





But was the industrialisation slow because he had put his efforts into looking after the richer peasants? According to Trotsky it was, going off the quoate above.


The industrialization wasn't slow under NEP but wasn't fast enough to the Bolshevik leadership. If you take a look at the statistics that I showed you'll see that USSR achieved its high economic growths under NEP. The problem was that the industrialization tempo could be much more fast under a planned economy than under NEP and they wanted to bring industrialization to Russia as fast as they could.


Then he says
"In its extended platform, which took up all the problems of industry and economy, the Left Opposition wrote: “The party ought to resist and crush all tendencies directed to the annulment or undermining of the nationalization of land, one of the pillars of the proletarian dictatorship.”


On that question, the Opposition gained the day; direct attempts against nationalization were abandoned."


surely the policy under Lenin would be common knowledge? I just have this feeling that there must have been a change in direction.



The article makes interesting reading from the bit I've read anyway. He says that in 1927 Stalin scorned the idea of building a hydroelectric dam

and that the left wing advocated a 5 year plan in 1923 but were laughed at.

The question that you are arising is the same of Brotsky: Shouldn't NEP have been implemented sooner?

I don't think it was reasonable to do so earlier and even in 1928 for the sake of USSR's economy. My opinion is that they should have implemented some sort of transitional phase between NEP and a planned economy instead of advancing immediately to the rapid industrialization. It would have avoided the conflict with Kulaks while dismantling them at the same time. The problem was the way collectivization was imposed and forced by above rising the strong opposition of Kulaks that would have been the same in 1925.

[bolshie]

The Trotsky's book that you are quoting calls "Revolution Betrayed" which was mainly an anti-Stalin work where Trotsky lashes out against Stalin's leadership.

There is that



What Trotsky forgot to mention is that he betrayed the revolution as well. He and Lenin laid down the foundations of Stalin's brutal regime.

did they?



Of course, he regretted that in the later stages of his live but the damage was already done and there was no way back. How we can't say that Trotsky regret was nothing more than an opportunistic maneuver to clean his past actions and present himself as a more human face of USSR as an alternative to Stalin's brutality in the eyes of the world?

It's possible, but if he was an opportunist, surely he would have just stayed on the right side of Stalin



Still regarding the nationalization issue, I don't have evidence that Stalin was favoring the rich peasants over the poor ones. The rich peasants were benefiting from NEP in 1925 as they were in Lenin's period. As far as I know nothing changed in NEP's orientation. Again, can be just more Trotsky rethoric against Stalin.

well, I assumed he was favouring the rich peasants based on this denationalisation thing, if it was actually that which we are not totally sure.

I googled Stalin denationalisation land to try to find more and came across this essay which said

"Zinoviev and Kamenev, already worried about Stalin's growing power, rudeness and disloyalty, were profoundly shocked by this development. Within a year they had broken with Stalin and went over to the Left Opposition. This realignment at the top of the Party was due to the growing pressures from the workers of Leningrad who were alarmed by the policy of enriching the kulaks and NEPmen."
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part2.html

So some people do seem to think the rich peasants were being favoured before the collectivisation.








The industrialization wasn't slow under NEP but wasn't fast enough to the Bolshevik leadership. If you take a look at the statistics that I showed you'll see that USSR achieved its high economic growths under NEP. The problem was that the industrialization tempo could be much more fast under a planned economy than under NEP and they wanted to bring industrialization to Russia as fast as they could.

Well I'm sure that was part of the reason yeah.




The question that you are arising is the same of Brotsky: Shouldn't NEP have been implemented sooner?

Do mean ended?



I don't think it was reasonable to do so earlier and even in 1928 for the sake of USSR's economy. My opinion is that they should have implemented some sort of transitional phase between NEP and a planned economy instead of advancing immediately to the rapid industrialization. It would have avoided the conflict with Kulaks while dismantling them at the same time. The problem was the way collectivization was imposed and forced by above rising the strong opposition of Kulaks that would have been the same in 1925.
Yes it does seem very rushed and badly handled

[JAM]

did they?

Yes. The ban of factions is the most paradigmatic case (I could give you more examples like the Trade Unions issue regarding bureaucratization of the regime). Lenin and Trotsky promoted and supported the implementation of the ban of factions within the party in the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party. This same rule supported by both men was used by Stalin to get rid of all opposition and thus establishing his supreme rule in USSR.




It's possible, but if he was an opportunist, surely he would have just stayed on the right side of Stalin

How? Trotsky was the main rival of Stalin for the succession of Lenin. It wouldn't make sense to be on Stalin's side. He never gave up of his goal to become the ruler of USSR. Their rivalry was much more personal than ideological and preceded the death of Lenin. If you take at look at Trotsky positions before the exile and the policies adopted by Stalin you'll see that they coincide. I posted earlier in this thread some quotes of Trotsky which illustrates that very well.



well, I assumed he was favouring the rich peasants based on this denationalisation thing, if it was actually that which we are not totally sure.

I googled Stalin denationalisation land to try to find more and came across this essay which said

"Zinoviev and Kamenev, already worried about Stalin's growing power, rudeness and disloyalty, were profoundly shocked by this development. Within a year they had broken with Stalin and went over to the Left Opposition. This realignment at the top of the Party was due to the growing pressures from the workers of Leningrad who were alarmed by the policy of enriching the kulaks and NEPmen."
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part2.html (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/%7Esocappeal/russia/part2.html)

So some people do seem to think the rich peasants were being favoured before the collectivisation.


My point is that if they were being favoured by NEP, they were being favored since the beginning of NEP's implementation and not only since when Lenin died and Stalin replaced him. There was no alteration of NEP policy by Stalin.





Do mean ended?

My mistake. I wanted to say "ended" and not "implemented".

[bolshie]

Yes. The ban of factions is the most paradigmatic case (I could give you more examples like the Trade Unions issue regarding bureaucratization of the regime). Lenin and Trotsky promoted and supported the implementation of the ban of factions within the party in the 10th Congress of the Bolshevik Party. This same rule supported by both men was used by Stalin to get rid of all opposition and thus establishing his supreme rule in USSR.

ok, so I googled this. Yes they banned factions in 1920. Using the same powers, Stalin kicked Trotsky out in 1927/8.

But are they the same thing? Lenin presumably had no wish to kick Trotsky out, or he would have done. Trotsky was with him as far as I know. 1920 was still in the civil war with all sorts going on including a famine

"In 1920 Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) became concerned about diverging views within the Russian Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Communist_Party). For example, the Democratic Centralists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Centralists) had been set up in March 1919 and by 19121 Alexander Shlyapnikov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shlyapnikov) had set up the Workers' Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Opposition). Lenin regarded these as distractions within the party when unity was needed in order to neutralise the major crises of 1921, such as the famines, and Kronstadt Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_Rebellion)."
wikipedia




How? Trotsky was the main rival of Stalin for the succession of Lenin. It wouldn't make sense to be on Stalin's side. He never gave up of his goal to become the ruler of USSR. Their rivalry was much more personal than ideological and preceded the death of Lenin. If you take at look at Trotsky positions before the exile and the policies adopted by Stalin you'll see that they coincide. I posted earlier in this thread some quotes of Trotsky which illustrates that very well.

Well, the stuff I read where Trotsky was criticising Stalin, it was all about his economic policies. You say that Stalin adopted Trotsky's positions after he kicked Trotsky out, that's not Trotsky's fault is it?

The impression I get is that Trotsky favoured industrialisation and clamping down on the rich peasant, and Stalin fought him and kicked him out, andf then found the rich peasants getting too powerful so he collectivised. All it means is Trotsky was correct. Or am I missing something?






My point is that if they were being favoured by NEP, they were being favored since the beginning of NEP's implementation and not only since when Lenin died and Stalin replaced him. There was no alteration of NEP policy by Stalin.


so if Stalin didn't alter course, how come the big battles with Trotsky? How come Trotsky described it as a change in course ("denationalisation" etc?

[JAM]

ok, so I googled this. Yes they banned factions in 1920. Using the same powers, Stalin kicked Trotsky out in 1927/8.

But are they the same thing? Lenin presumably had no wish to kick Trotsky out, or he would have done. Trotsky was with him as far as I know. 1920 was still in the civil war with all sorts going on including a famine

"In 1920 Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) became concerned about diverging views within the Russian Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Communist_Party). For example, the Democratic Centralists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Centralists) had been set up in March 1919 and by 19121 Alexander Shlyapnikov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shlyapnikov) had set up the Workers' Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Opposition). Lenin regarded these as distractions within the party when unity was needed in order to neutralise the major crises of 1921, such as the famines, and Kronstadt Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_Rebellion)."
wikipedia

The question is not if Lenin wanted Trotksy in the party or not but if Lenin and Trotsky were different from Stalin. If the Civil War was the reason to ban the factions (which is not an excuse anyway) why they didn't lift the ban after the war ended?




Well, the stuff I read where Trotsky was criticising Stalin, it was all about his economic policies. You say that Stalin adopted Trotsky's positions after he kicked Trotsky out, that's not Trotsky's fault is it?

As I said to you their rivalry was mainly personal and not a ideological one.


The impression I get is that Trotsky favoured industrialisation and clamping down on the rich peasant, and Stalin fought him and kicked him out, andf then found the rich peasants getting too powerful so he collectivised. All it means is Trotsky was correct. Or am I missing something?

Trotsky defended planned economy since the beginning but initially it wouldn't make any sense to drop a NEP when it was recovering the USSR's economy in a very effective and faster manner. Another thing is that planned economy wouldn't have been realistic possible to implement when USSR was still with a high devastated economy.





so if Stalin didn't alter course, how come the big battles with Trotsky? How come Trotsky described it as a change in course ("denationalisation" etc?

The big battles with Trotsky were mainly personal. Trotsky described it negatively as a change in the course because he wanted to trash Stalin hard as he could possible do. It's a typical opposition tactic. In political fights you have always demagogy and Trotsky was not different from anybody else.

[Geiseric]

See the growth that was happening was in capitalist production whereas socialist production needed to be built. Industrialisation didn't match with growth rates, which were all growths in privately owned farms. Stalin was against injecting money into industrialisation because of his loyalty to the rich peasants. this only changed when the rich peasants attacked him and the rest of the cities, when he was forced to invest and work on collectivisation and industrialisation. It was everything but personal, and your analysis of the feud mirrors my bourgeois history teacher. as for the factions banning, trotsky was pushing for a vote for an end to that but the CC which was under the command of Stalin put it down.

[JAM]

See the growth that was happening was in capitalist production whereas socialist production needed to be built. Industrialisation didn't match with growth rates, which were all growths in privately owned farms.

That's precisely why NEP was dropped by Stalin in 1928 and replaced by the planned economy.


Stalin was against injecting money into industrialisation because of his loyalty to the rich peasants. this only changed when the rich peasants attacked him and the rest of the cities, when he was forced to invest and work on collectivisation and industrialisation.

Stalin was much loyal to rich peasants as was Lenin. This is a completely non-sense. Nothing changed in the economic policy of USSR from Lenin's implementation of NEP to the replacement of it by Stalin in 1928.

Another thing that makes your argument absolutely ludicrous is saying that Stalin was loyal to rich peasants and they attacked him. If they were allies why they attacked him then? Something is not right here.




It was everything but personal, and your analysis of the feud mirrors my bourgeois history teacher. as for the factions banning,

Tell me then, what were the differences between Trotsky before the exile and Stalin? The only things that moved Trotsky opposition to Stalin were ambition, opportunism and personal resentment.


trotsky was pushing for a vote for an end to that but the CC which was under the command of Stalin put it down.

Yes because he realized that his early positions against any opposition within the party just backfired against him. Too bad for him.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Whenever I think about what Trotsky would do "differently," China is always the first thing that comes to mind. As I remember reading, the Stalinist Comintern fully endorsed General Chiang Kai-shek and the bourgeois Kuomintang party (KMT); doing so played a central role in the defeat of the Second Chinese Revolution of 1925-1927. Chiang succeeded in part because the Soviet leadership lavished the KMT with the banner of "world revolution" and subordinated the Chinese communists to it, thus duping the workers. Of course, Trotsky and the Left Opposition vehemently opposed the Comintern's alliance with the KMT, but to no avail. It's possible that had the Comintern had broken with the KMT at a much earlier time and allowed the Communists their independence, Chinese history could have taken a much different turn.

[Geiseric]

Well lenin implemented it because namely the peasants were refusing to grow food. they were made to grow food by lying to the rich leaders saying they'd be able to profit as long as food was sent to the cities. Money was invested in the privately owned farms as a way of jump starting the basic pre ww1 food production to normal heights, as a stepping stone to industrialisation and modernisation. Stalin wanted to allow the capitalists to own their land longer, eventually strangle the cities with artificial shortages (capitalist farmers will do that after they own enough food production, trotsky saw this coming in 1925 and warned of it) and strenghen the role of the bureaucracy as the sole controllers of the scarce food supply, because they profited as well from this process and Stalin represented them as leader of the center opposition. answer this though, even if it does "grow," alot, why would you support the growth of a capitalist mode of production opposed to a socialist one, when it is possible to create?

[JAM]

Well lenin implemented it because namely the peasants were refusing to grow food. they were made to grow food by lying to the rich leaders saying they'd be able to profit as long as food was sent to the cities. Money was invested in the privately owned farms as a way of jump starting the basic pre ww1 food production to normal heights, as a stepping stone to industrialisation and modernisation. Stalin wanted to allow the capitalists to own their land longer, eventually strangle the cities with artificial shortages (capitalist farmers will do that after they own enough food production, trotsky saw this coming in 1925 and warned of it) and strenghen the role of the bureaucracy as the sole controllers of the scarce food supply, because they profited as well from this process and Stalin represented them as leader of the center opposition answer this though, even if it does "grow," alot, why would you support the growth of a capitalist mode of production opposed to a socialist one, when it is possible to create?

How do you know it was possible to create it when Trostky advocated? You were the one who said that NEP should have been dropped once the pre-war levels were reached and that's exactly what Stalin did. Now you're saying that it was possible to implement it earlier? Without NEP the success achieved by the planned economy in the 30's wouldn't be possible to achieve. NEP saved USSR from the economic collapse to which the planned economy would have led the country if it had been implemented at the time Trotsky advocated.

[Geiseric]

well the food shortages ended by 1925, the food shortages were the reason industrialisation couldn't happen in 1921, thus what was the reason for not starting the process in 1925? The land could of started being turned into collective farms at a slower rate, one which would accomidate for the peasantry. The Kulaks which were a weak class in 1925 wouldn't of been able to grow their farms to the sizes that they were by 1928, and they would of been powerless against the process. However by 1925 the food shortages ended, so why would socialist production not of been "built," at that point?

[Geiseric]

I mean instead of building socialism, state capitalism was kept for an unnecessary long amount of time. I can work on getting some statistics if you want, but i'm usually busy so it might take a while. If you want to look at the arguements for industrialisation in 1925, read The Tasks of the Left Opposition (1925-1927) by trotsky. It won't bite and has good information. I'll read a stalinist work on the time if it would make you feel better.

[JAM]

well the food shortages ended by 1925, the food shortages were the reason industrialisation couldn't happen in 1921, thus what was the reason for not starting the process in 1925? The land could of started being turned into collective farms at a slower rate, one which would accomidate for the peasantry. The Kulaks which were a weak class in 1925 wouldn't of been able to grow their farms to the sizes that they were by 1928, and they would of been powerless against the process. However by 1925 the food shortages ended, so why would socialist production not of been "built," at that point?

The Kulaks didn't become a powerful class in just 2 years. The were already powerful in 1925.

If food shortages were the reason why industrialization couldn't happen, why industrialization advanced and developed despite deep food shortages of 1928 and 1932?

I don't think that was the reason.

[Geiseric]

In 1921 food shortages were the reason collectivisation couldn't happen. Between 1925 and 1928, a considerable amount of land was actually concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer Kulaks. 6% of Kulaks and rich peasants owned 60% of the grain, much of which was held back to keep the prices high. if the land was collectivised in 1925, the prices of grain would of gone down and the cities would be freer (because of no food shortages) to create more and more machinery for the collectivisation process. The imperialists were in a depression in 1925, so they were in no position to invade. we're both pro industrialisation, and the N.E.P. was indeed needed from 1921-1925, however it was only planned to be used by Lenin untill industrialisation was in place. a better question for me to ask was, why was collectivisation impossible in 1925 and not in 1928? There were much larger capitalist farms in 1928, so the struggle to expropiate those lands was that much harder due to the prolongation of the N.E.P.

[Geiseric]

The food shortages were still going on as an effect of the N.E.P. and the rich farmers holding back food to keep the prices high. This was advantageous for them as well as the bureaucracy who had the power to choose who ate. If the land was collectivised in 1925, the food shortages would of never happened from 1928-1930.

[Geiseric]

And in 1932, that was a result from the still peasant farms refusing to till their land as a result of the rushed collectivisation which left many of them on the verge of cannibalism. They weren't accomidated for in the newer collectivisation plan, so the people paid the price .

[JAM]

In 1921 food shortages were the reason collectivisation couldn't happen. Between 1925 and 1928, a considerable amount of land was actually concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer Kulaks. 6% of Kulaks and rich peasants owned 60% of the grain, much of which was held back to keep the prices high. if the land was collectivised in 1925, the prices of grain would of gone down and the cities would be freer (because of no food shortages) to create more and more machinery for the collectivisation process. The imperialists were in a depression in 1925, so they were in no position to invade. we're both pro industrialisation, and the N.E.P. was indeed needed from 1921-1925, however it was only planned to be used by Lenin untill industrialisation was in place. a better question for me to ask was, why was collectivisation impossible in 1925 and not in 1928? There were much larger capitalist farms in 1928, so the struggle to expropiate those lands was that much harder due to the prolongation of the N.E.P.


As you know the agricultural production suffered an enormous setback after the implementation of collectivization in 1928 leading to the famines of 1932. If you take in consideration that in 1925 the Russian economy was still very debilitated that agricultural output setback would have created a negative impact which the Russian economy supported in 1929 but in 1925 it couldn't have supported. The economic collapse was almost guaranteed there.

[Geiseric]

You're ignoring the reasons behind the setback of 1928. Research that collapse and the reasons behind if and you'll see that those reasons didn't exist in 1925. You need to look at how the Kulak grew in the period of 1925-1928, and you'll see that by 1928, when they were strangling the cities by the throat, and threatening the revolution, it was all due to the amount of power they were able to gain from 1925-1928. If industrialisation and collectivisation started in 1925, when the Kulaks were WEAK, they wouldn't of been able to starve the cities into submission.

Trotsky would of started industrialising in 1925, Stalin was an opportunist for supporting the N.E.P. to 1928, as was Zinoviev, Kamanev, Tomsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik central commitee.

[JAM]

You're ignoring the reasons behind the setback of 1928. Research that collapse and the reasons behind if and you'll see that those reasons didn't exist in 1925. You need to look at how the Kulak grew in the period of 1925-1928, and you'll see that by 1928, when they were strangling the cities by the throat, and threatening the revolution, it was all due to the amount of power they were able to gain from 1925-1928. If industrialisation and collectivisation started in 1925, when the Kulaks were WEAK, they wouldn't of been able to starve the cities into submission.

Trotsky would of started industrialising in 1925, Stalin was an opportunist for supporting the N.E.P. to 1928, as was Zinoviev, Kamanev, Tomsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik central commitee.

As I said before, the Kulaks were already STRONG in 1925. An entire class doesn't goes from weak to strong in just 2 years. The better prove of this is the fact that the Kulak problem was raised in 1925. If they were weak the problem certainly wouldn't have been raised.

[Geiseric]

You're contradicting yourself, so you recognise that the Kulak question, i.e. recognizing them as a threat already happened and you don't think anything had to be done once they were recognized as a threat? Sure they were strong but give me a reason for not starting collectivisation at that point instead of later, when they would of inevitably grown stronger.

[JAM]

You're contradicting yourself, so you recognise that the Kulak question, i.e. recognizing them as a threat already happened and you don't think anything had to be done once they were recognized as a threat? Sure they were strong but give me a reason for not starting collectivisation at that point instead of later, when they would of inevitably grown stronger.

No I'm not, on the contrary. If you look to our whole arguing my point was always that the Kulaks were already powerful in 1925. You were the one who claimed the contrary and now you recognize that they were strong already at the time.

I already gave you a reason: the debility of the Russian economy at the time.

[Geiseric]

I never counter stated what I said, you just failed to recognize that since the Kulak Question was presented in 1925, and nothing was done about it by the people who were at the time in charge of the U.S.S.R, the course they took was a mistake. Trotsky predicted that if the collectivisation didn't start at that point, the Kulaks would grow out of control (they were somewhat under control in 1925 at least).

It's simple, the bigger the privately owned farms are, the stronger the Kulaks are. In 1928, peasant farms grew larger than they were under the Czars. In 1925, they were as large and efficient as during Czarism. Thus it holds to logic that once the richest 6% of peasantry own 60% of the grain, by 1926, it would only get worse by 1928. It's common sense at that point to start collectivising, once the rich peasants become a large enough threat.

And history was proven that the continuation of allowing peasants to amass more power in those extra years was fatal by 1928, when Stalin was forced to push for industrialisation as soon as the Kulaks, who he at one point supported with his notions of "denationalizing land," held the cities hostage.

The Kulaks would not of been able to force the famines if they were crushed a few years earlier. I don't see why any communist would be against expropiating the property of a capitalist farmer, at 1925, when the capitalist farmer was still under control of the workers state, and when the reason for starting the N.E.P. in the first place, famine, wasn't a factor. At that point, if the collectivisation process started, and the Kulaks and rich peasants were stripped and liquidated as a class, by 1930, the industrialisation and the first 5 year plan would of been over!

The issue is a matter of political opportunism in the span of 1925-1928 by the party leadership, not only Stalin. The Kulaks would of not been able to fight against industrialisation if the workers state had some initiative and forced them to give up their grain earlier on. The famine of 1928 is proof of this. There was no kulak forced famine in 1925. Thus by 1925, they must have been weaker.

[JAM]

I never counter stated what I said, you just failed to recognize that since the Kulak Question was presented in 1925, and nothing was done about it by the people who were at the time in charge of the U.S.S.R, the course they took was a mistake. Trotsky predicted that if the collectivisation didn't start at that point, the Kulaks would grow out of control (they were somewhat under control in 1925 at least).

First you say that they were weak. Next you say they were strong. I think that is a contradiction here.

How can you say they were under control in 1925 and out in 1928? Where is the separation line?

If you said that they were already strong in 1925 as they were in 1928, why they were under control in 1925 and not in 1928? In my opinion they were already out of control in 1925 and that's why the problem was raised in that year.


It's simple, the bigger the privately owned farms are, the stronger the Kulaks are. In 1928, peasant farms grew larger than they were under the Czars. In 1925, they were as large and efficient as during Czarism. Thus it holds to logic that once the richest 6% of peasantry own 60% of the grain, by 1926, it would only get worse by 1928. It's common sense at that point to start collectivising, once the rich peasants become a large enough threat.

And history was proven that the continuation of allowing peasants to amass more power in those extra years was fatal by 1928, when Stalin was forced to push for industrialisation as soon as the Kulaks, who he at one point supported with his notions of "denationalizing land," held the cities hostage.

But as I told you in 1925 the Soviet Government was in no condition to launch a major war on the kulaks because of the state of Soviet's economy which was still weak. A breakdown of the agricultural output (which was unavoidable) would have led to the collapse of the economy at the time. In 1928 the Soviet Economy was much more strong to hold the negative impact of the collectivization.



The Kulaks would not of been able to force the famines if they were crushed a few years earlier. I don't see why any communist would be against expropiating the property of a capitalist farmer, at 1925, when the capitalist farmer was still under control of the workers state, and when the reason for starting the N.E.P. in the first place, famine, wasn't a factor. At that point, if the collectivisation process started, and the Kulaks and rich peasants were stripped and liquidated as a class, by 1930, the industrialisation and the first 5 year plan would of been over!

By 1930 there would be no USSR in first place if the collectivization had been pushed in 1925. If the famine was the reason why NEP was implemented why Lenin didn't dropped NEP when the famine crisis ended? Even better, why Lenin said the NEP was a long-term policy? Was it because he thought that the famine was long-term? I don't think so.


The issue is a matter of political opportunism in the span of 1925-1928 by the party leadership, not only Stalin. The Kulaks would of not been able to fight against industrialisation if the workers state had some initiative and forced them to give up their grain earlier on. The famine of 1928 is proof of this. There was no kulak forced famine in 1925. Thus by 1925, they must have been weaker.

In 1925 the Kulaks were already holding grain from the soviet government. See the grain procurement crisis of 1925.

This shows that in 1925 the Kulaks were already in position to create a major crisis in USSR.

And you didn't have a famine in 1928. The famine of 1932 was a direct result of the collectivization implementation which means that you would have one even if collectivization had been implemented earlier.

[Geiseric]

Why would you aggrivate the issue by allowing them to grow? Sorry about getting my dates mixed up, but the grain crisis of 1925 shows even more obviously that the Kulaks were a threat to the revolution. actual production rose but that food didn't reach the cities because of the Kulaks. So why would you allow them a longer amount of time, so they can force a more severe crisis later on down the road? The industrialisation was inevitable, and the Kulaks were against Industrialisation. Thus the longer they are allowed to gain power, the more they will be able to fight against the industrialisation.

[JAM]

Because as I told you the soviet economy couldn't afford a war on the kulaks in 1925. A major agricultural production breakdown in 1925 would have led the economy to the collapse at the time.

[Geiseric]

But they could afford a war with the Kulaks at a later date, when the Kulaks had time to arm themselves and grow as a force? Conflict with Capitalists is inevitable, however you're taking a defeatist stance.

[JAM]

But they could afford a war with the Kulaks at a later date, when the Kulaks had time to arm themselves and grow as a force? Conflict with Capitalists is inevitable, however you're taking a defeatist stance.

Yes because the economy in 1928 was much stronger than in 1925 due to the high economic growth of the previous years. The pre-war production levels were reached by this time.

You mentioned earlier that the industrialization should have been launched once the pre-war production levels were reached. After I showed you that those levels were precisely reached in 1928 you changed your opinion.

Being realistic is being defeatist? It would have been better for the USSR to see the economy collapsing giving the victory to the kulaks? Or it was better to wait until 1928 when the economy was much better prepared to resist a negative impact provoked by collectivization and thereby giving the victory to the soviet government over the kulaks while avoiding the collapse of the economy?

[Geiseric]

Well the farming crisis subsided by 1925 and the food production was at pre-war levels.

Regardless of "how strong the economy was," it was a strong(er) capitalist economy in 1925 that needed a huge amount of work to expropiate from the richer peasants, and waiting the extra two years didn't help at all, since it only let the problems that existed in 1925 grow to huger proportions.

anyways, the problem in 1921 was that no food was made at all, and by 1925 the food was there but the willingness to take it from the Kulaks and to start collectivisation from the party leadership was not. So there are two different issues that had to be dealt with differently.

[JAM]

Well the farming crisis subsided by 1925 and the food production was at pre-war levels.

The soviet economy was not only based in food production. The overall economic production was still way behind the pre-war levels.


Regardless of "how strong the economy was," it was a strong(er) capitalist economy in 1925 that needed a huge amount of work to expropiate from the richer peasants, and waiting the extra two years didn't help at all, since it only let the problems that existed in 1925 grow to huger proportions.

But let also the soviet economy to grow stronger to resist the negative impact on the economy produced by collectivization.


anyways, the problem in 1921 was that no food was made at all, and by 1925 the food was there but the willingness to take it from the Kulaks and to start collectivisation from the party leadership was not. So there are two different issues that had to be dealt with differently.

As I already told you the food was not the main reason behind NEP otherwise this policy would have been dropped by Lenin when the famine ended. Not only Lenin didn't drop it but he even said that NEP was a long- term policy.

In 1925 there were no economic conditions to carry out the collectivization process without leading the economy to the collapse. This was not a matter of opportunism but rather realism.

[Geiseric]

Alright, so it seems like we need to bring out the Lenin, 1918.

In launching their attack on peaceful Russia the British and Japanese capitalist robbers are also counting on alliance with the internal enemy of the Soviet government. We all know who that internal enemy is. It is the capitalists, the landowners, the kulaks, and their offspring, who hate the government of the workers and working peasants-the peasants who do not suck the blood of their fellow-villagers.
A wave of kulak revolts is sweeping across Russia. The kulak hates the Soviet government like poison and is prepared to strangle and massacre hundreds of thousands of workers. We know very well that if the kulaks were to gain the upper hand they would ruthlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of workers, in alliance with the landowners and capitalists, restore back-breaking conditions for the workers, abolish the eight-hour day and hand back the mills and factories to the capitalists.
That was the case in all earlier European revolutions when, as a result of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks succeeded in turning back from a republic to a monarchy, from a working people’s government to the despotism of the exploiters, the rich and the parasites. This happened before our very eyes in Latvia, Finland, the Ukraine and Georgia. Everywhere the avaricious, bloated and bestial kulaks joined hands with the landowners and capitalists against the workers and against the poor generally. Everywhere the kulaks wreaked their vengeance on the working class with incredible ferocity. Everywhere they joined hands with the foreign capitalists against the workers of their own country. That is the way the Cadets, the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks have been acting: we have only to remember their exploits in “Czechoslovakia”.[22] That is the way the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, in their crass stupidity and spinelessness, acted too when they revolted in Moscow, thus assisting the whiteguards in Yaroslavi and the Czechs and the Whites in Kazan. No wonder these Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were praised by Kerensky and his friends, the French imperialists.
There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never."


Lenin would never of tolerated the Kulak sabotage if he was around by 1925, or when the N.E.P. was allowing the growth of the class he knew to be the enemy of the workers.The soviet state needed to regain control of the situation, not allow the Kulaks to grow even more. Obviously the food wasn't the only reason, but it doesn't take much to know that the Capitalists were too strong by 1925, and that an inevitable conflict with them was going to happen once industrialisation was going to start. And obviously they were wrong if they thought that waiting was going to lessen the blow done to the Proletariat, since there were famines with millions of people dead after the course they took.

[JAM]

In that case we need to bring Lenin of 1921:

"The NEP is in earnest and long-term"

Saying that NEP was a long-term policy Lenin would never have dropped it in 1925. Probably not even in 1928 like some sources say.

[Geiseric]

You can't just use one quote to justify this though, nonetheless one sentence. he was dead by the time of the kulak uprising, and the generality of "long term," hardly means that he would continue it as the working class was being killed off. i can quote stalin saying that he believes in perminant revolution, and it wouldn't be the same as his stance in 1928. A single line is much less indicative of his views that countless works he wrote against the capitalists in the U.S.S.R. and the warnings he made to the communist party having to do with opportunism and political corruption.

[JAM]

It's not just the quote. You have also Lenin's own implementation of NEP which allowed the resurgence of capitalism in Russia.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

From my study, he would have done some very different things.

He wouldn't have had such a large bureaucracy. Or even any bureaucracy (The Revolution Betrayed). I'd image he would have left the soviets greater power, using the party as a 'vanguard' to guide, and breaking up the monopoly of power the CPSU held over elections in the Soviets (The Revolution Betrayed).

He would have taken a more hostile approach to fascism. He was a supporter of Red Army intervention in the rise of fascism, and he wouldn't have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (and having been commissar for war, he would have led the Red Army more effectively, had more trust in his generals and not purge it as much as Stalin did).

And he would have taken advantage of the Great Depression. That should go without saying.

And yes, a lot of people are probably reading this and facepalming. But, I have strong views on this topic.