Why didn't Stalin murder Trotsky when he had the chance?

[Comrades Unite!]

I've always wondered why Stalin never ordered Trotsky to be murder when he had the chance.

Why didn't he have him killed in '27?

Sorry if this sounds dumb but I can't think as to why Stalin deported rather than murdered.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky was the heroic leader of the Red Army, had a huge following in the Red Army throughout the 20s, was remembered as the leader of the Petrograd Soviet, and was basically the "Number Two guy" under Lenin. It would not be easy to destroy a figure like this. First Trotsky's followers (which consisted at one time or another, ofmost of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party) had to be divided, discredited, and killed. Before this of course Stalin had to depend on these people tp industrialize the Soviet economy.

There is a theory as well that Stalin needed an outside enemy to focus discontent against. If things went wrong because of incompetant and rushed industrialization, bureaucratic ineptidude, it was easier to focus anger at the "Trotskyite conspiracy".When war in Europe broke out, it was no longer convenient to have this enemy and Trotsky was murdered.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I've always wondered why Stalin never ordered Trotsky to be murder when he had the chance.

Why didn't he have him killed in '27?

Sorry if this sounds dumb but I can't think as to why Stalin deported rather than murdered.

Deportation is better for PR purposes.

[human strike]

He did have Trotsky murdered in '27 and replaced him with a double as a Stalinist agent.

[Omsk]

That's a good explenation why his works are such rubbish in the later period of his life. It's like he wanted to push people away from Trotskyism with his pathetic rubbish.

[human strike]

Now you know.

[Omsk]

Although it's not like his egoistical rubbish was any better before they kicked him out of the USSR.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Because he was so evil that he wanted the trots to keep suffering by reading that garbage.

[Comrade Samuel]

If we may stow away the witty one-liners for a bit I think it may of had to do with his somewhat large following (that could of openly revolted if he was killed) and his leading of the red army during a very decisive point in their history.

Of corse we disagree with his theories but can we please just stop this tendancy shit now?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Why wouldn't they rise up when he was exiled. When his following was also able to get the slanders he wrote.

[Comrade Samuel]

Why wouldn't they rise up when he was exiled. When his following was also able to get the slanders he wrote.

Perhaps they where appeased by the fact Stalin at least spared his life? We could also look at the possibility that Trotskyists secretly attempted to sabotage the Soviet Union from within but for some reason that is still a very controversial topic with no clear answers and is difficult to look at objectively and form decent opinions on.

[Sheepy]

Deportation is better for PR purposes.

Pretty much that. The guy was trying to lie and cheat his way into power, he wouldn't have wanted it to be obvious. Still sickening to see all these Stalinists act all apologetic. Trotsky's work may be considered "rubbish", but at least no one ever got thrown in the Gulags over them.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Pretty much that. The guy was trying to lie and cheat his way into power, he wouldn't have wanted it to be obvious. Still sickening to see all these Stalinists act all apologetic. Trotsky's work may be considered "rubbish", but at least no one ever got thrown in the Gulags over them.

That makes it okay. You know, Holocaust Deniers talk rubbish too, but they haven't killed much persons either. That makes it okay guys!
Ugh.

[Silvr]

The real question is why Trotsky didn't murder Stalin when he had the chance.

[Omsk]

Trotsky's work may be considered "rubbish", but at least no one ever got thrown in the Gulags over them.

And Stalins theoretical contributions like his, Marxism and the National Question, got people into a Gulag? That does not even make sense.



The guy was trying to lie and cheat his way into power


The amount of work Stalin did for the party and the people during the period of his rise is so huge that the entire work of the contemporary Trotskyist sects looks like a tiny ball of rubbish next to the Eiffel Tower that is the work of the true old Bolshevik and friend of Lenin - Stalin.


The real question is why Trotsky didn't murder Stalin when he had the chance

He tried to fight him at some points but he was blown to shreds so bad he made the Tsar a fighting icon.

[Sasha]

Infractions to generalstrike, omsk and negativecreep for trolling/flamebaiting, you guys know damn well that shit isn't allowed, certainly not in the learning section.

[Sheepy]

That makes it okay. You know, Holocaust Deniers talk rubbish too, but they haven't killed much persons either. That makes it okay guys!
Ugh.
Are you seriously dumb enough to make that argument towards me? Stalin was responsible for the worst shift between libertarian to authoritarian in Russian history. While Trotsky was writing articles in Mexico, Stalin was sending people to labor camps, sending his lapdog secret police into peoples homes, thousands of people were executed by his order, and all of which were covered by obvious lies, yet you people still want to treat the man like a hero?

Pfft, some socialist you are.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Are you seriously dumb enough to make that argument towards me? Stalin was responsible for the worst shift between libertarian to authoritarian in Russian history. While Trotsky was writing articles in Mexico, Stalin was sending people to labor camps, sending his lapdog secret police into peoples homes, thousands of people were executed by his order, and all of which were covered by obvious lies, yet you people still want to treat the man like a hero?

Pfft, some socialist you are.

Actually, the question is who where these people. Also, I think a shift from libertarian is always good. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is about suppressing bourgeois ideology, people get shot if needed. Was it wrong to shoot kulaks who were destroying the grain of the collectivised farms, which could've led to famine, resulting in millions more death?

[Sheepy]

Actually, the question is who where these people. Also, I think a shift from libertarian is always good. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is about suppressing bourgeois ideology, people get shot if needed. Was it wrong to shoot kulaks who were destroying the grain of the collectivised farms, which could've led to famine, resulting in millions more death?
Dictator of the Proletariat is supposed to represent workers control and direct democracy, not death squads and secret police. It's supposed to be defended from the bourgeoisie, not kill your own people out of paranoia. When you shift away from liberty to state power, you become what you fought against in the first place.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Dictator of the Proletariat is supposed to represent workers control and direct democracy, not death squads and secret police. It's supposed to be defended from the bourgeoisie, not kill your own people out of paranoia. When you shift away from liberty to state power, you become what you fought against in the first place.

That's why you are a liberal, and I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Also Trotsky would also hold state power if he became the leader, Lenin had state power. The DotP actually still contains a state, and so does socialism and the “state will whither away”. Marxists aren't idealist that think that smashing the capitalist system makes the world happy the next day, that all class antagonisms are gone. That's why the state is needed after the revolution, that is why the suppression of bourgeois ideology is needed. All your talk about liberty is very enjoyable, but not realistic in any sense of the word.

[Ocean Seal]

Most likely Stalin thought that Trotsky wouldn't have much of an audience while alive, but that rather killing him would bring his thought to prominence and divide the socialist movement. In 1940 Stalin had more or less hegemony whereas he didn't' in 1927 (although he could have killed Trotsky). Basically I just think that Stalin underestimated the weight of his thought.

[Hit The North]

That's why you are a liberal, and I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Also Trotsky would also hold state power if he became the leader, Lenin had state power. The DotP actually still contains a state, and so does socialism and the “state will whither away”. Marxists aren't idealist that think that smashing the capitalist system makes the world happy the next day, that all class antagonisms are gone. That's why the state is needed after the revolution, that is why the suppression of bourgeois ideology is needed. All your talk about liberty is very enjoyable, but not realistic in any sense of the word.

So Sheepy is a liberal because she insists that the DOP should function in the interests of the proletariat and you're a "Marxist-Leninist" because you cheerlead Stalin's extermination of the leadership of Lenin's party and the revolution?

You Stalinoids make me piss my pants. Why don't you fuck off to some Nazbol site or Stormfront where your disgusting anti-working class politics would be welcome?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So Sheepy is a liberal because he insists that the DOP should function in the interests of the proletariat and you're a "Marxist-Leninist" because you cheerlead Stalin's extermination of the leadership of Lenin's party and the revolution?

You Stalinoids make me piss my pants. Why don't you fuck off to some Nazbol site or Stormfront where your disgusting anti-working class politics would be welcome?

She said that they moved away from liberty to state power. Leninist aren't opposed to the state, they argue that it will whither away eventually (At least the socialist state, the capitalist state must be smashed)
You can call me a nazbol all day long, it only shows how pathetic you are. And dear trot rat, I really don't care, because you are a crying swine, who wants to get attention by buzz-words like “nazbol”.

[Robespierres Neck]

And like most Trotsky/Stalin threads, this one was quickly lit on fire. :trotski::glare:

[Robespierres Neck]

But really, to call someone who understands the lengths a party will go to protect the revolution from counter-revolutionary elements, like Trotskyism, a Nazi is historically ignorant and childish. It's been well recorded that not only the party, but the Soviet people, wanted nothing to do with Trotsky, his crew, and his theories.

[Hit The North]

But really, to call someone who understands the lengths a party will go to protect the revolution from counter-revolutionary elements, like Trotskyism, a Nazi is historically ignorant and childish.

Trotsky was one of the leaders of the revolution, so to call his ideas counter-revolutionary is worse than historical ignorance - it is historically dishonesty. And don't you think that it is somewhat ironic that the party protects the revolution by destroying its revolutionary leadership? Who, of the revolutionary generation of the Bolsheviks was left standing after Stalin's show trials?

Meanwhile I don't think its inappropriate to call devotees of a leader who signed a peace treaty with Hitler and murdered Bolsheviks and workers and denied the free association of workers, a Nazi. In fact, it'd be hard to find a more appropriate label.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Trotsky was one of the leaders of the revolution, so to call his ideas counter-revolutionary is worse than historical ignorance - it is historically dishonesty. And don't you think that it is somewhat ironic that the party protects the revolution by destroying its revolutionary leadership? Who, of the revolutionary generation of the Bolsheviks was left standing after Stalin's show trials?

Meanwhile I don't think its inappropriate to call devotees of a leader who signed a peace treaty with Hitler and murdered Bolsheviks and workers and denied the free association of workers, a Nazi. In fact, it'd be hard to find a more appropriate label.

Molotov comes to mind.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That's why you are a liberal, and I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Also Trotsky would also hold state power if he became the leader, Lenin had state power. The DotP actually still contains a state, and so does socialism and the “state will whither away”. Marxists aren't idealist that think that smashing the capitalist system makes the world happy the next day, that all class antagonisms are gone. That's why the state is needed after the revolution, that is why the suppression of bourgeois ideology is needed. All your talk about liberty is very enjoyable, but not realistic in any sense of the word.

Of course a real Marxist, who is a materialist and is not resorting to political idealism, would recognize that a state dictatorship without popular control would form a new ruling class with its own economic interests, which is precisely what happened. So Stalinists at least as much as Trotskyists are guilty of idealism.

[Il Medico]

Molotov comes to mind.
Yeah, worked out pretty damn well for him, didn't it? Got a drink named after him and everything! :lol:

[GodWasHere]

i don't really like Stalin. he had undeniable achievements but it all came to shit when he took the power from the people. i agree that it was probably a combination of all said, PR, not wanting to piss off the masses, and like most dictators needing a scrape goat.

[Pretty Flaco]

stalin couldn't kill trotsky because he was too busy personally killing 200,000,000 people in the ussr and he got a little bit carried away.

[Comrades Unite!]

What the hell happened to this thread?

[jookyle]

Okay, I'm going try to answer this with out getting into a tendency brew-ha-ha. Stalin didn't kill Trotsky in 1927 because he didn't need to. Exiling him was simply a better a move as killing him would have made him a martyr to the left opposition and may have given them more incentive to act against Stalin. So by simply removing him, the leadership of the opposition was broken up. I don't think killing him was really an option at that point. I think the reason he was eventually killed was because he was developing connections in places Germany and there was a fear that he could be giving them information that would lead to breaches in security for the Soviet Union.

I am not defending or supporting the actions of either side, just trying to answer the question to my best ability.

[Sheepy]

He said that they moved away from liberty to state power. Leninist aren't opposed to the state, they argue that it will whither away eventually (At least the socialist state, the capitalist state must be smashed)
You can call me a nazbol all day long, it only shows how pathetic you are. And dear trot rat, I really don't care, because you are a crying swine, who wants to get attention by buzz-words like “nazbol”.

Just for the record: I'm a girl, thank you very much.

For your information, the Soviet state never did "whither away", it only grew stronger, more bureaucratic. All forms of workers mode of production and workers rights were destroyed, and the USSR became another militaristic, bourgeois hellhole using surveillance and secret police on its own people for even the slightest of offenses. Stalin, the man you're defending as if he were your god, is not a socialist, only another murderous capitalist with his own intentions.

The hypocrisy also astounds me. Here you are calling me a "liberal", yet here you ***** about being called out on your fascist tendencies? Cry me a river, Molotov...

[Comrade Samuel]

I would not go so far as to call Trosky a counter-revolutionary, not even a knowing enemy of socialism, he was merely a man with some misguided theories that contradicted another man who had correct theories and a short temper. This is only my opinion but if this threads burning to the ground anyways I might as well get in on the action.

[Comrades Unite!]

Okay, I'm going try to answer this with out getting into a tendency brew-ha-ha. Stalin didn't kill Trotsky in 1927 because he didn't need to. Exiling him was simply a better a move as killing him would have made him a martyr to the left opposition and may have given them more incentive to act against Stalin. So by simply removing him, the leadership of the opposition was broken up. I don't think killing him was really an option at that point. I think the reason he was eventually killed was because he was developing connections in places Germany and there was a fear that he could be giving them information that would lead to breaches in security for the Soviet Union.

I am not defending or supporting the actions of either side, just trying to answer the question to my best ability.

Thank you Jookyle, Thanks to the guys that actually bothered answering the question.
Could a mod please rid this thread.

[Althusser]

He said that they moved away from liberty to state power. Leninist aren't opposed to the state, they argue that it will whither away eventually (At least the socialist state, the capitalist state must be smashed)

She's not arguing against the existence of a transitional state. He's arguing against Stalin's murderous reign.

[Il Medico]

That's why you are a liberal, and I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Actually, if we're being frank about the matter, that's why she's a communist and you're, well, not.
Also Trotsky would also hold state power if he became the leader, Lenin had state power. The DotP actually still contains a state, and so does socialism and the “state will whither away”. Marxists aren't idealist that think that smashing the capitalist system makes the world happy the next day, that all class antagonisms are gone. That's why the state is needed after the revolution, that is why the suppression of bourgeois ideology is needed. Correct, well, ignoring the context of what you're talking about. What I'm saying is the words you typed are correct in a general sense. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is needed. However...
All your talk about liberty is very enjoyable,And that's where you ruin it with all your mustache loving context. I've never quite understood why the authoritarian "left" tunnel visions on the 'dictatorship' part of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a class dictatorship, much like the Bourgeois Dictatorships we live in today. It simply means the proletariat are in charge of the 'state', which is achieved not by authoritarian bureaucracy, but by workers councils and direct democracy. Proletarian control of the state means just that.

but not realistic in any sense of the word.What's unrealistic is the idea that you can somehow shit out communism by giving power to an quasi-bourgeois class of bureaucratic elite centered around a Mario impersonator.

[Sheepy]

Exactly. The reason why we all practice egalitarian theory isn't so we can praise another selfish asshole in a suit like the bourgeoisie already want us to do in the first place. Socialism promises liberty, fair work, and solidarity, all in which Stalinists tend to despise. I mean I am sure you're enjoying that wallpaper of Stalin on your desktop and that Red Army Ushanka you bought on ebay, but we're not in it for some yuppie trend, we want social and fiscal change. We don't have time for any pessimism and excuses for apologetic behavior.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Exactly. The reason why we all practice egalitarian theory isn't so we can praise another selfish asshole in a suit like the bourgeoisie already want us to do in the first place. Socialism promises liberty, fair work, and solidarity, all in which Stalinists tend to despise. I mean I am sure you're enjoying that wallpaper of Stalin on your desktop and that Red Army Ushanka you bought on ebay, but we're not in it for some yuppie trend, we want social and fiscal change. We don't have time for any pessimism and excuses for apologetic behavior.

I don't wear hats, my desktop is a picture of a dragon. How can you promise solidarity? Unity and Solidarity is about the same thing, so this bit from Lenin goes:
"The workers do need unity. And the important thing to remember is that nobody but themselves will “give” them unity, that nobody and help them achieve unity. Unity cannot be “promised” - That would be vain-boasting, self-deception; Unity cannot be “created” out of “agreements” between intellectualist groups. To think so is a profoundly sad, naïve and ignorant delusion."
-V.I. Lenin, Unity

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Just for the record: I'm a girl, thank you very much.

For your information, the Soviet state never did "whither away", it only grew stronger, more bureaucratic. All forms of workers mode of production and workers rights were destroyed, and the USSR became another militaristic, bourgeois hellhole using surveillance and secret police on its own people for even the slightest of offenses. Stalin, the man you're defending as if he were your god, is not a socialist, only another murderous capitalist with his own intentions.

The hypocrisy also astounds me. Here you are calling me a "liberal", yet here you ***** about being called out on your fascist tendencies? Cry me a river, Molotov...

Sorry for the mistake, will change it.
About Molotov, what is wrong with him?
He was a communist as early as 15 and in 1906 joined the Bolshevik-wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Party. He helped the founding of Lenin's newspaper Pravda. Also fascist tendencies? His “memoirs” suggest otherwise:
“Hitler was an extreme nationalist. A blind and stupid anticommunist.”...“There are people of that kind now, too. That's why we must pursue a vigilant and firm policy.”...“He had a very one-sided view—he was an extreme nationalist, a chauvinist, blinded by his own ideas.”
-Felix Chuev, Molotov Remembers

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky had enormous prestige in the Red Army and there is a strong possibility he could have pulled off a coup in the late 1920s if he had wanted to. He refused to do this, such is not the Marxist method. Coming to power though a coup would not revive a worker's government but would be a continuation of what was happening under SAtalin.

The idea that Trotsky was a Nazi agent is just as absurd as saying that Lenin was an agent of Imperial Germany.There is no connection whatsoever between Trotsky and fascism. Indeed Trotsky pointed a way forward for German socialists which could have avoided or overthrown Hitler.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

BTW why do MLs angrily accuse Trotskyists of being "liberals"? This has never made sense to me.Trotskyists for the most part are the one's who have refused the class collaborationist Popular Frontism, the "bloc of four classes" and relied on working class activism to move things forward.

Stalin's method...Popular Front in France..disaster (I know the PCF was not directly involved but they were part of this)

Popular Frontism in Spain...disaster

Forced alliance between the CCP and the Goumindang..disaster

Chile, Portugal, post Franco Spain..disaster

Maoist "New Communist" support for Mondale, Jesse Jackson and now Obama...disaster

How are Trotskyists "liberals"?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If you mean what I said, That was against an anarchist.

[eyeheartlenin]

Without trying to be provocative, given the subject of this thread, I thought it was worthwhile to post Trotsky's grandson's recollections of the sad events around the murder of Trotsky, 72 years ago. If this is the wrong thread, I imagine an admin person will make a change.

Elsewhere, at least a year ago, Estaban Volkov described the SWP's security precautions for Trotsky at Coyoacán as being terribly amateurish. Volkov is in a position to know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/19/trotsky-last-day-by-grandson?CMP=email

[eyeheartlenin]

The accusation (that Trotskyists are liberals) that cde Rosenweg cites is particularly inappropriate, given the fact that the CPUSA, the very prototype of a Stalinist ("ML") party, backed the patrician plutocrat Roosevelt (who sent the Army to attack the Bonus marchers [military veterans who needed some money to survive]) and a bunch of later Democratic Party hacks, whereas the Trotskyist SWP ran its own presidential candidates from 1948 on – nominating and running a worker to take votes away from the Democrat in a race hardly denotes political liberalism. It would be interesting to know if the CPUSA supported cold-warrior Kennedy, another plutocrat, who called for action against Cuba during the TV debates before the 1960 election. Somewhere Gus Hall is smiling, since, in our own time, the CPUSA have been big supporters of the current Democrat in the Oval Office, a pro-war multi-millionaire (whose mansion in Chicago is reportedly worth $5,000,000) lawyer. They will undoubtedly be big backers of the Democratic ticket this November.


BTW why do MLs angrily accuse Trotskyists of being "liberals"? This has never made sense to me.Trotskyists for the most part are the one's who have refused the class collaborationist Popular Frontism, the "bloc of four classes" and relied on working class activism to move things forward....

How are Trotskyists "liberals"?

[Omsk]

I obviously didn't go forward into a serious dicussion, but now it came to me.

You people know nothing.



Who, of the revolutionary generation of the Bolsheviks was left standing after Stalin's show trials?



Only the greatest party organizer, hero of labour, war hero, champion of the construction of socialism in the USSR and the last consistant ortodox Marxist-Leninist legend next to Enver Hoxha - Iron Lazar Kaganovich, who died in 1991, so many decades after the "SHOW TRIALSSS" .

Not to mention thousands of other true communists.

[Geiseric]

Omsk, have you ever read a political document not written by a Stalinist? Trotsky most certainly wasn't a fascist, he would of not fought with the bolsheviks during the civil war (or led them for that matter) if he was, BUT I don't know why I have to explain this. He wrote entire books about why and how hitler was to be stopped, and his dissection of fascism was correct, whereas the Stalinists were plain wrong.

[eyeheartlenin]

Just to chime in on what cde Lenina wrote, Trotsky was right on Germany, in opposing the Stalinist doctrine that social democrats are really fascists, which disarmed the German workers in front of the deadly onslaught by the real fascists, and he was right on France and Spain, in opposing the popular fronts backed by the French and Spanish CP's, that tied workers' organizations to bourgeois politicians, when what was desperately needed was independent political action by the workers to overthrow bourgeois rule, and he was right on the nature of the USSR, a degenerated workers' state, where Trotsky clearly saw the alternatives as being either a workers' political revolution to end Stalinist one-party rule or capitalist restoration, which has now occurred throughout the former workers' states, and he was right about the Stalinized Third International, which, after the catastrophic defeat in Germany, was a hindrance to proletarian revolution. For all those reasons (and more), being a revolutionary today means being a Trotskyist.


... Trotskyists for the most part are the one's who have refused the class collaborationist Popular Frontism, the "bloc of four classes" and relied on working class activism to move things forward.

Stalin's method...Popular Front in France..disaster (I know the PCF was not directly involved but they were part of this) & Popular Frontism in Spain...disaster & Forced alliance between the CCP and the Goumindang ..disaster & Chile, Portugal, post Franco Spain..disaster & Maoist "New Communist" support for Mondale, Jesse Jackson and now Obama...disaster

[Omsk]

Omsk, have you ever read a political document not written by a Stalinist? Trotsky most certainly wasn't a fascist, he would of not fought with the bolsheviks during the civil war (or led them for that matter) if he was, BUT I don't know why I have to explain this. He wrote entire books about why and how hitler was to be stopped, and his dissection of fascism was correct, whereas the Stalinists were plain wrong.


Where did i argue that Trotsky was a fascist, ie that his ideology was fascism?

[Sheepy]

Sorry for the mistake, will change it.
About Molotov, what is wrong with him?
He was a communist as early as 15 and in 1906 joined the Bolshevik-wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Party. He helped the founding of Lenin's newspaper Pravda. Also fascist tendencies? His “memoirs” suggest otherwise:
“Hitler was an extreme nationalist. A blind and stupid anticommunist.”...“There are people of that kind now, too. That's why we must pursue a vigilant and firm policy.”...“He had a very one-sided view—he was an extreme nationalist, a chauvinist, blinded by his own ideas.”
-Felix Chuev, Molotov Remembers
The man was a liar, when the Soviets invaded Finland with guns, bombs, and tanks, the man had the audacity to lie on Soviet radio saying that it "was not an invasion", instead made the lie that they were delivering food. I don't care how long the man has called himself a "Communist", he never did act like one. You can quote all of your beloved personality cults you like, but they don't change history. Stalin was just like Hitler, Molotov was just like Goebbels. The only thing different was their names and their agenda, but they were all lying, murderous fascists that were willing to give up the lies of their workers in the name of national supremacy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The man was a liar, when the Soviets invaded Finland with guns, bombs, and tanks, the man had the audacity to lie on Soviet radio saying that it "was not an invasion", instead made the lie that they were delivering food. I don't care how long the man has called himself a "Communist", he never did act like one. You can quote all of your beloved personality cults you like, but they don't change history. Stalin was just like Hitler, Molotov was just like Goebbels. The only thing different was their names and their agenda, but they were all lying, murderous fascists that were willing to give up the lies of their workers in the name of national supremacy.

Not really. But you are a fucking moron of you actually think they were the same, anyways. You anarchist liberals should get your head out your arse and look at reality instead of the bourgeois press.

[Sheepy]

Then he proceeds with name calling, the young Stalinist exclaims...

"Not really" the vague response it may be, provides non-existent information, for what does it mean? Not really it does, not really it doesn't. Who knows what it could mean? NegativeCreep knows, for let us pray that he will one day reveal his big secret.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Then he proceeds with name calling, the young Stalinist exclaims...

"Not really" the vague response it may be, provides non-existent information, for what does it mean? Not really it does, not really it doesn't. Who knows what it could mean? NegativeCreep knows, for let us pray that he will one day reveal his big secret.

So let me get this straight. When I used information from Molotov, you called him qnd Stalin a fascist. Of course that isn't name-calling. I don't really give a damn if you call them fascist, but I think it is disgusting to dismiss the fight for socialism the fight against nazism as fascist. To just regard the hard work that people did, as something for fascists. That is disgusting. And it is even worse when I do give info (from Molotov) you go on saying I have non-existent information. And you call me a young Stalinist. Of course, no name calling. It's only bad when “stalinists“ do it.

[Sheepy]

You called me a "fucking moron" and didn't elaborate on why. I told you a historical fact on something Molotov had done, and you brush it off without an argument. If it's anything you are, you remind of those randroid libertarians that resort to these tactics. Saying "Not Really" doesn't tell me anything, and neither does insulting me! I do not read the Bourgeois Press, I'm just trying to point out the reality that your personal gods have done. Both Hitler and Stalin threw their OWN PEOPLE into camps, they both had their OWN PEOPLE executed for political reasons, and they both lied to their OWN PEOPLE about what was going on to stop them from seeing the reality of their degenerate, anti-worker agendas.

I guess you would still like to pretend that there is no such thing as a Gulag?

[jookyle]

Hey, guys, you do know that it's not 1926 anymore, right? Trotsky and Stalin are both dead. True Story.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You called me a "fucking moron" and didn't elaborate on why. I told you a historical fact on something Molotov had done, and you brush it off without an argument. If it's anything you are, you remind of those randroid libertarians that resort to these tactics. Saying "Not Really" doesn't tell me anything, and neither does insulting me! I do not read the Bourgeois Press, I'm just trying to point out the reality that your personal gods have done. Both Hitler and Stalin threw their OWN PEOPLE into camps, they both had their OWN PEOPLE executed for political reasons, and they both lied to their OWN PEOPLE about what was going on to stop them from seeing the reality of their degenerate, anti-worker agendas.

I guess you would still like to pretend that there is no such thing as a Gulag?

Not at all, it was very real. And I don't care about my OWNNNNNNN people. I care about their actions, if they are counter-revolutionaries they deserve to be punished (Not to say there weren't mistakes, that would me moronic). Of course you are an anarchist who thinks that all authority is wrong, but I am a Marxist Leninist, so I agree with the when they say:

"Either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."
-Friedrich Engels, On Authority

And if you don't want to kill any of your OWNNNNN PEOPLEEEESSSZZZ!!!
I wish you luck with your revolution:
"Have these gentleman [anti-authoritarians] ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of terror which arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of authority of armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
-Friedrich Engels, On Authority

But fortunately, you people won't achieve anything for you people don't have a proletarian ideology:

"Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world-outlook."
-V.I. Lenin, Anarchism and Socialism

And

"Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian"
-V.I. Lenin, Anarchism and Socialism

[Igor]

Of course you are an anarchist who thinks that all authority is wrong:

Opposition to authority has nothing to do with anarchism, mate, and you're talking out of your arse here.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Opposition to authority has nothing to do with anarchism, mate, and you're talking out of your arse here.

Not really, every anarchist I have spoken to is anti-Authoritarian, and I would say quite a big amount of anarchists are anti-authoritarian, so it certainely has something to do with it (maybe not for everyone though).

[Igor]

Not really, every anarchist I have spoken to is anti-Authoritarian, and I would say quite a big amount of anarchists are anti-authoritarian, so it certainely has something to do with it (maybe not for everyone though).

Anarchism attracts people who don't get it and are merely lured in by its ideals. Finding those ideals, such as opposition to hierarchy, attractive is understandable and doesn't require theoretical knowledge and shit gets confused. I wouldn't discredit Marxism-Leninism via the types who're in just to be edgy or those who're new to the idea and are a bit too eager and naïve in their defenses of the Soviet system, even though I've unfortunately met way too many such people.

If you read any prominent anarchist theorists or perhaps more importantly, look at any place where anarchists have taken power even temporarily, they've never shied away from using methods that could be considered "authoritarian".

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The idea of anarchism probably attracts people who don't get it and are merely lured in by merely the ideals of anarchism. And finding those ideals, such as opposition to hierarchy, attractive is understandable and doesn't require theoretical knowledge and shit gets confused. I wouldn't discredit Marxism-Leninism via the types who're in just to be edgy or those who're new to the idea and are a bit too eager and naïve in their defenses of the Soviet system, even though I've unfortunately met such people.

If you read any prominent anarchist theorists or perhaps more importantly, look at any place where anarchists have taken power even temporarily, they've never shied away from using methods that could be considered "authoritarian".

I agree, because I see revolution in itself as authoritarian. Thats why I think people proclaiming to be anti-authoritarian and revolutionary complete idealist liberals.(or am I name-calling again? Apologies to Sheepy)

[Omsk]

Stalin was just like Hitler, Molotov was just like Goebbels. The only thing different was their names and their agenda, but they were all lying, murderous fascists that were willing to give up the lies of their workers in the name of national supremacy.

Sigh. Why do people like you even bother some ML's. These "arguments" are on the level of kindergarten children.

Btw, for your information, the Finnish Nazis attacked first, and killed a number of Soviet servicepersons, and before that they broke off all diplomatic contact. Close wikipedia and read a book.

[Il Medico]

The only thing different was their names and their agenda, but they were all lying, murderous fascists that were willing to give up the lies of their workers in the name of national supremacy.
I know it's fairly tempting to resort to superficial comparisons of the authoritarian-left and the authoritarian-right when slogging through the muck with some tankie, but despite what little stock Stalinst ideas hold in proletarian politics, they're certainly not fascist. While broad comparisons certainly can be made, fascism is radically different both in ideology and practice from Stalinist thought and are they're pretty much completely on the other side of the political spectrum from one another. Not to look like I'd siding with the mustache enthusiasts, but you're on the wrong side of that particular argument.



Btw, for your information, the Finnish Nazis attacked first, and killed a number of Soviet servicepersons, and before that they broke off all diplomatic contact Would you care to link your source for this Omsk? I searched for a while but came up with nothing to support it.

Regardless, Soviet imperialist ambitions at this time were pretty self evident, and with the Molotov-Ribbentrop act having them at ease in regards to their Nazi neighbors, at least for a while, reclaiming Finland was an obvious step to take. If what you claim actually happened in some form, it would seem likely to be something of a Glewitz incident type deal.


"Either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."
-Friedrich Engels, On Authority

And if you don't want to kill any of your OWNNNNN PEOPLEEEESSSZZZ!!!
I wish you luck with your revolution:
"Have these gentleman [anti-authoritarians] ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of terror which arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of authority of armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
-Friedrich Engels, On Authority
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Engels wasn't talking about how iron handed leaders with pretty epic facial hair were necessary to the revolution. Or maybe he was, he did have a pretty sweet beard. I'd suggest, rather, that he was refuting the idea that the transitional proletarian state was unnecessary. It's a pretty big stretch to take a statement about how the proletariat need to use force of arms and the authority of their government to prevent the bourgeois from returning to power and use it to justify the idea that purges, gulags, and general oppression of the proletariat by a political elite is the only way to safeguard the revolution.

[Omsk]

Tanner (1950), pp. 85–86. The name of the event is "Shelling of Mainila".

But the point is, i dont need to pick sides in a conflict between the Soviet Union and a Nazi colony, a conflict between a proletarian dictatorship and a bourgeois tirany. It does not matter who started the war, the Soviet side should be supported.

I also would like to see "Sheepy" prove some sources for the claim that the Soviets invaded without a reason, and that Molotov lied and claimed that they wanted to send food.

Oh wait i wont see a source because thats a lie. A complete fantasy.

[Il Medico]

Tanner (1950), pp. 85–86. The name of the event is "Shelling of Mainila". Um, this is a bit awkward, but do you do realize that the source (http://books.google.com/books?id=J1elAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) you're citing confirms my suspicions about the attack not being Finnish but a staged pretext for an invasion and basically contradicts your entire statement? All the other sources on the "Shelling of Mainila" I found after some searching claimed the same thing. In fact, the only source I could find that claimed it was a Finnish attack was the Soviet government at the time. A source, I might add, which has about the same amount credibility on the issue of proving the attack as the Johnson Administration would on proving the Gulf of Tonkin incident (i.e none).



But the point is, i dont need to pick sides in a conflict between the Soviet Union and a Nazi colony, a conflict between a proletarian dictatorship and a bourgeois tiranyAll semblance of proletarian control in the Soviet Union had died out long before the Winter War.


It does not matter who started the war, the Soviet side should be supported.Communist don't pick sides in wars between capitalist nations, but if one is going to, I'd say picking the imperialist aggressor nation isn't the best choice.

[Peoples' War]

I agree, because I see revolution in itself as authoritarian. Thats why I think people proclaiming to be anti-authoritarian and revolutionary complete idealist liberals.(or am I name-calling again? Apologies to Sheepy)
You're actually correct about revolution being an authoritarian thing, considering the goal is to suppress the bourgeoisie and the workers to take power.

However, the "anti-authoritarianism" being discussed means being opposed to ultra-centralized state power, where the state dictates to the people in an undemocratic and often oppressive manner. This was Stalin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't think Stalin was that, but I think there is no point in getting that discussion on again, because it always ends in shit, and there are pobably a million threads about it.

[Peoples' War]

I don't think Stalin was that, but I think there is no point in getting that discussion on again, because it always ends in shit, and there are pobably a million threads about it.
With the extent of flamebaiting from ML's, and others I'm sure -- but I noticed only MLs -- earlier in the thread, I'm surprised this thread is still alive.

The discussion can be held, and should be. However, not here.

[Geiseric]

Stalin wasn't a fascist. He was although the person who betrayed the world revolution in favor of protecting himself and the rest of the soviet bureaucracy. He also murdered or kicked out the people who most often were the original founders or most active members of the international communist parties as well. Cominterns stances were directed for the purpose of pacifying the capitalist states so they would allow the bureaucracy to rule the U.S.S.R. Which they didn't, as we know today.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Holy shit guys, quit with the fucking insults already and try to have an objective and civil debate!

In both sides of this ridiculous, splitting argument, I see next to nothing of objective value. Everything is nothing more than a continuous array of emotion, ad hominem and pure assertion on the opposition!

You people are not arguing, nor are you contemplating each other's position and constructively critiquing it. Instead, you are standing on two sides of a tennis court shouting insults, violently rejecting the merit in the ideology you face with subjection.

Hissing spur of the moment insults such as 'liberal','fascist' and 'utopian' is not constructive criticism at all, and if you cannot take into account exactly what the person you are shouting at has to say, then these are rendered nothing more than redundant spit-froth festivals.



...Not to mention the original topic has been completely lost in this swamp of hatred. Great job, gais.

[JoeySteel]

No one has really answered the question in a basic way. I think it's actually quite simple. "Stalin" or actually the Central Committee of the CPSU(B) did not simply "murder" "opponents" or party leaders with different or incorrect views to the majority. For many, many years debate within the party resolved the questions of the way forward. When Trotsky as a Bolshevik party member ceased to function as a responsible party member carrying out duties, and worked only to obstruct (actually he did this for many years, but was tolerated) he was given exile. The idea that Stalin just wanted to murder everyone who disagreed with the Central Committee is not consistent with history, especially at that time.

The deaths of Trotsky and other former Opposition leaders came only later, when their ideas and positions in the Soviet Union were far more insignificant. These came only after these characters were found to be in secret collusion to take advantage of the pre-war situation in Europe in order to enact a putsch in the USSR. Regardless of the truth of the matter, Soviet leadership evidently believed these charges in the main and felt the evidence was strong. As Ismail noted recently Stalin referred to Trotsky in private before his execution as a "fascist hireling."

This thread is much more of a debate about the use of force and such now, and not really answering the question, but really Stalin didn't murder Trotsky when he had "the chance" (a weird concept) because he would have had no reason to, given that political debate and the determination of the rank and file of the Bolshevik party to build socialism reduced Trotsky to political insignificance. Trotsky wasn't simply killed for his incorrect ideas or his work obstructing the Party from the inside.

[Hit The North]

The deaths of Trotsky and other former Opposition leaders came only later, when their ideas and positions in the Soviet Union were far more insignificant. These came only after these characters were found to be in secret collusion to take advantage of the pre-war situation in Europe in order to enact a putsch in the USSR. Regardless of the truth of the matter, Soviet leadership evidently believed these charges in the main and felt the evidence was strong.


Of course they did, they were the ones who invented the conspiracy in the first place! How naive can you get? :rolleyes:


but really Stalin didn't murder Trotsky when he had "the chance" (a weird concept)


But actually, you have just demonstrated that Stalin did have Trotsky killed when he had the chance. The "chance" depended on Trotsky being isolated and discredited with false allegations of conspiring with the Nazis. The irony is that when Trotsky was assassinated the power that most colluded with the Nazis was the USSR, through its non-aggression pact.

[Omsk]

Um, this is a bit awkward, but do you do realize that the source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.com/books?id=J1elAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) you're citing confirms my suspicions about the attack not being Finnish but a staged pretext for an invasion and basically contradicts your entire statement? All the other sources on the "Shelling of Mainila" I found after some searching claimed the same thing. In fact, the only source I could find that claimed it was a Finnish attack was the Soviet government at the time. A source, I might add, which has about the same amount credibility on the issue of proving the attack as the Johnson Administration would on proving the Gulf of Tonkin incident (i.e none).



Regardless, it mentions the attack, hence the attack happened and is documented.You wanted me to give you a source about the attack, i gave you a source.



All semblance of proletarian control in the Soviet Union had died out long before the Winter War.



Usual abstract rubbish.


Communist don't pick sides in wars between capitalist nations, but if one is going to, I'd say picking the imperialist aggressor nation isn't the best choice.

And the poor puppet Nazi regime is? Get out of here.

[Geiseric]

No one has really answered the question in a basic way. I think it's actually quite simple. "Stalin" or actually the Central Committee of the CPSU(B) did not simply "murder" "opponents" or party leaders with different or incorrect views to the majority. For many, many years debate within the party resolved the questions of the way forward. When Trotsky as a Bolshevik party member ceased to function as a responsible party member carrying out duties, and worked only to obstruct (actually he did this for many years, but was tolerated) he was given exile. The idea that Stalin just wanted to murder everyone who disagreed with the Central Committee is not consistent with history, especially at that time.
Well you're wrong, they did simply kill other dissenting members of the party. That's what the purges were. Debate died out during the Civil War, when it threatened to tear apart the party, and should of been restored before Trotsky even realized this. Also I want proof that Trotsky "Worked to obstruct" as a bolshevik party leader. And it is very much consistent with history, what else were the purges? Several hundred thousand people being killed is history, and you can't expect anybody to ever forget it.


The deaths of Trotsky and other former Opposition leaders came only later, when their ideas and positions in the Soviet Union were far more insignificant. These came only after these characters were found to be in secret collusion to take advantage of the pre-war situation in Europe in order to enact a putsch in the USSR. Regardless of the truth of the matter, Soviet leadership evidently believed these charges in the main and felt the evidence was strong. As Ismail noted recently Stalin referred to Trotsky in private before his execution as a "fascist hireling."
No shit Stalin talked ill about trotsky, and Ismail "recently pointing out" a slander that Stalin said, who btw was the actual person allying with the Nazis doesn't mean much. Trotsky had no intention of "Causing a coup" in the U.S.S.R, which he stated on multiple occasions. During the N.E.P. period several red army generals actually came up to him and offered to support him in a coup against the Bukharin and Stalin side which supported the continuation of the N.E.P. past 1925, but he refused. However the purges wouldn't of had to happen if Stalin didn't have so many working class people fighting against his either Menshevik or Ultra Left policies, internally and internationally.

By the way, when Fascist Italy invaded Abyssinia, Stalin shipped them oil from Baku for their fleets. When hitler was building his army, the U.S.S.R. sent tons of resources for its construction. Who sounds like a Fascist Hireling now?


This thread is much more of a debate about the use of force and such now, and not really answering the question, but really Stalin didn't murder Trotsky when he had "the chance" (a weird concept) because he would have had no reason to, given that political debate and the determination of the rank and file of the Bolshevik party to build socialism reduced Trotsky to political insignificance. Trotsky wasn't simply killed for his incorrect ideas or his work obstructing the Party from the inside.

Trotsky had huge significance among the working class in Russia, you seriously don't have any idea about how important he was during the Russian Revolution. But this is all pointless to talk about, since it's common knowlege. Trotsky was actually voted in as the leader of a Soviet, by direct democracy, did Stalin ever have that happen to him?

[Hit The North]

And the poor puppet Nazi regime is? Get out of here.

This just proves that Stalin invented charges of Nazism at this time in order to justify invasion and assassination. Outside of that, the charge that the Fins were a puppet Nazi regime is as tangible as smoke. In fact, it is well known that it was the pact with Germany that enabled the USSR to invade Finland at all. I'm beginning to think that Stalin, the most powerful Nazi enabler in Europe at this time, was some kind of master of irony.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Remember how he enabled the nazis when the Red Army destroyed the nazis and liberated half of europe.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, Stalin fell out with everyone in the end. But I stressed "at this time". And without a doubt, the pact enabled the Nazis to concentrate on their ambitions without fear of a Soviet response. It also enabled the Soviet Union more time to arm itself in event of war. But that is hardly a principled stand against fascism, is it?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yeah, Stalin fell out with everyone in the end. But I stressed "at this time". And without a doubt, the pact enabled the Nazis to concentrate on their ambitions without fear of a Soviet response. It also enabled the Soviet Union more time to arm itself in event of war. But that is hardly a principled stand against fascism, is it?

It gave time to arm against fascism, if they didn't do that they would've gotten destroyed by fascism. If Stalin didn't stress from the beginning of his contact with Churchill that a second front was needed, fascism would've won. Also this "pact" cam into being after Britain, the Us and France rejected , on multiple occasions, to ally with Stalin and the USSR against fascism. I can't see how this isn't a principled stand, for this all was needed, in order to destroy fascism.

[Hit The North]

It gave time to arm against fascism, if they didn't do that they would've gotten destroyed by fascism. If Stalin didn't stress from the beginning of his contact with Churchill that a second front was needed, fascism would've won. Also this "pact" cam into being after Britain, the Us and France rejected , on multiple occasions, to ally with Stalin and the USSR against fascism. I can't see how this isn't a principled stand, for this all was needed, in order to destroy fascism.

That's a very generous assessment. Akin to extolling Churchill as a great anti-fascist and Great Britain as waging a war against fascism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That's a very generous assessment. Akin to extolling Churchill as a great anti-fascist and Great Britain as waging a war against fascism.

Not really. Stalin exploited the contradictions between the imperialists.

[Il Medico]

Regardless, it mentions the attack, hence the attack happened and is documented.You wanted me to give you a source about the attack, i gave you a source.
Well, usually when someone request a source they are looking to verify your statement. But whatever.




Usual abstract rubbish.
I'm not seeing how pointing out the fact that the proletariat had lost control of the soviet state to the bureaucratic "vanguard" party long before the Winter War is 'abstract rubbish'.




And the poor puppet Nazi regime is? Get out of here.
Like I said, communist don't take sides in wars between capitalist nations, because no matter who was the aggressor or not, it is the workers who are dying for the profit of the state and ruling class.

However, I'm not seeing how at the outbreak of the Winter War Finland was a 'nazi puppet'. Finland's liberal democratic government had pretty icy relations with the Germans during the 1930's due to their rejection of the Nazi's fascist ideals. Finland at the time was officially neutral, though they did later ally with the Nazis against the Soviets during the Continuation War in an effort to regain lost land, but during the Winter War they could not be classified as a Nazi puppet or even friend.

[Crux]

Only the greatest party organizer, hero of labour, war hero, champion of the construction of socialism in the USSR and the last consistant ortodox Marxist-Leninist legend next to Enver Hoxha - Iron Lazar Kaganovich, who died in 1991, so many decades after the "SHOW TRIALSSS" .

Not to mention thousands of other true communists.
http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/855e620a768383be1af080cc4b721aad_1M.png

For the record I'd also lay the blame of Joffe's suicide on the Stalinist regime as well:
"By late 1927, he was gravely ill, in extreme pain and confined to his bed. After a refusal by the Stalinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist) leadership of the Communist Party to send him abroad for treatment and Trotsky's expulsion from the Communist Party on November 12, 1927, he committed suicide. He left a farewell letter addressed to Trotsky, but the letter was seized by Soviet secret police agents and later selectively quoted by Stalinists to discredit both Joffe and Trotsky. Trotsky's eulogy at Joffe's funeral was his last public speech in the Soviet Union." Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=Jk0k_LBDmHEC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

[eyeheartlenin]

In an earlier version of the powerful graphic in Majakovskij's post, published by Trotskyists, Stalin is not included among those who passed away for various reasons, including assassination, being strangled or shot, and dying in prison (after being a part of Lenin's leadership team). Instead, at the bottom of the poster, to the best of my recollection, is the sentence: "Stalin, the executioner, alone remains."

[Geiseric]

But none of that matters since they were fascist sabateurs. Rykov was a Czarist himself, and i'm sure Kamanev was guilty of something while he was leading a soviet when he was 18.

[Crux]

How strange is it not that the majority of the bolshevik leadership of 1917 turned out to be secret fascists? I would make more snarky comments, but in reality this is no laughing matter.

[Sheepy]

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How strange is it not that the majority of the bolshevik leadership of 1917 turned out to be secret fascists? I would make more snarky comments, but in reality this is no laughing matter.

I was pondering this the other day.

How is it possible - in terms of logic - to both proclaim the 1917 revolution as this great, heroic event, whilst also condemning the majority of the leaders of the revolution in a variety of ways as fascists, saboteurs, counter-revolutionaries etc.?

It makes no sense!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, this thread is just everything that's wrong with Revleft, with the 'Stalin v Trotsky' thing and with the wider left in general. Some of you just don't get it. Nobody in the real world gives a shit.

[Grenzer]

Also, this thread is just everything that's wrong with Revleft, with the 'Stalin v Trotsky' thing and with the wider left in general. Some of you just don't get it. Nobody in the real world gives a shit.

The same could be accurately said about your revolutionary sloganeering. What's your point?

The odds are if someone is here, then they are a leftwing nerd of some kind; so why not discuss the nuance of leftist history? If you don't want to participate, then don't post in the thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The same could be accurately said about your revolutionary sloganeering. What's your point?

The odds are if someone is here, then they are a leftwing nerd of some kind; so why not discuss the nuance of leftist history? If you don't want to participate, then don't post in the thread.

Revolutionary sloganeering? What are you on about?

I generally talk about history that is actually relevant. I'm an historian myself. The Stalin v Trotsky wankfest is the most pathetic, irrelevant piece of history around. It's a load of dead shit. It has no relevance.

So take your ad hominems away with you, please. :glare:

[Hit The North]

The Stalin v Trotsky wankfest is the most pathetic, irrelevant piece of history around. It's a load of dead shit. It has no relevance.


I think arriving at conclusions of what constitutes actual existing socialism is of continuing relevance and this is really what the "Stalin v Trotsky wankfest" is really about.

[Igor]

Btw, for your information, the Finnish Nazis attacked first, and killed a number of Soviet servicepersons, and before that they broke off all diplomatic contact. Close wikipedia and read a book.

holy shti i didn't know some of you guys are actually thick enough to believe the shelling of mainila shit

I'm really fucking eager to hear what books actually you'd want us to read because shelling of Mainila is pretty much universally accepted to be a Soviet fabrication, it was about as believable than the German claims of Poland invading Germany with the Gleiwitz incident, and would make as much sense. Are you actually suggesting that a pretty much unallied, fairly unindustrialized nation like Finland would think it's a good idea to attack Soviet Union with no back up from anyone? Not even the Soviets claimed it was a Finnish war of aggression after Stalin died but of course, that probably just validates your theory in your minds.

e: to clarify a bit the situation for everybody, Finnish involvement in the World War 2 can be divided to two main parts: 1939 to 1940 and 1941 to 1944, the Winter War and the Continuation War. The former was fairly isolated conflict in the grand scheme of things and ended up in SU annexing large parts of eastern Finland. The latter was a conflict were Finland was pretty much without any doubts a German ally, received German arms and funding and actively participated in Operation Barbarossa. So the Nazi accusations don't really come out of nowhere, they're just not really that relevant in 1939 when the initial Soviet invasion began.

[A Marxist Historian]

I've always wondered why Stalin never ordered Trotsky to be murder when he had the chance.

Why didn't he have him killed in '27?

Sorry if this sounds dumb but I can't think as to why Stalin deported rather than murdered.

Answering the OP, it's a stupid question. I mean, hey, why doesn't Obama save a lot of time and effort and just hit Romney & Ryan with a drone? There's already precedent for him killing an American citizen without a trial after all.

Killing Trotsky in 1927 would have been an absolute political impossibility, if he had, the popular outrage would have been immense and the other Politburo members would have had him arrested, and Bukharin not Stalin would then have become the Soviet leader. Moreover, it would have been extremely difficult to do practically, as Menzhinsky, then the head of the GPU, would almost certainly have refused to do it.

And moreover, in Russia itself the head of the NKVD, then not what it later became but simply the body in charge of police and prisons, was headed by ... a Trotskyist, Beloborodov I think, till he was expelled as a Trotskyist in the fall of '27.

The first Trotskyist killed was in 1928, that was Blumkin, Trotsky's man in the GPU, who happened to be in charge of GPU operations in ... Turkey, where Trotsky had been exiled to. Menzhinsky and Yagoda were in favor of that as they didn't care for the idea of a Trotskyist mole in their organization.

It was only after Trotsky was framed up for allegedly plotting the assassination of Kirov in 1934 that assassinating Trotsky became politically doable.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Molotov comes to mind.

Ah yes, Molotov! He was the one who, not being Jewish unlike the previous Soviet foreign minister who got demoted for the duration of the Hitler/Stalin pact, got the assignment of shaking Nazi hands at the meeting where the agreement was signed.

And famously stated at the time that "fascism is a matter of taste."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Sorry for the mistake, will change it.
About Molotov, what is wrong with him?
He was a communist as early as 15 and in 1906 joined the Bolshevik-wing of the Russian Social-Democratic Party. He helped the founding of Lenin's newspaper Pravda. Also fascist tendencies? His “memoirs” suggest otherwise:
“Hitler was an extreme nationalist. A blind and stupid anticommunist.”...“There are people of that kind now, too. That's why we must pursue a vigilant and firm policy.”...“He had a very one-sided view—he was an extreme nationalist, a chauvinist, blinded by his own ideas.”
-Felix Chuev, Molotov Remembers

I luvvit. Even half a century later, all he can say about Hitler is that he was too much of an extremist, kinda stupid, and his ideas were "very one-sided." Therefore partially correct, but oversimplified...

-M.H.-

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I luvvit. Even half a century later, all he can say about Hitler is that he was too much of an extremist, kinda stupid, and his ideas were "very one-sided." Therefore partially correct, but oversimplified...

-M.H.-

And that we must pursue a firm policy against people of that kind. It may be oversimplified but that is not the point, I wasn't going to read Molotov for a detailed account of why Hitler was bad. My point was that for a fascist (as he got calles), his ideao of having a fiem policy would be counter-productive.

[A Marxist Historian]

Um, this is a bit awkward, but do you do realize that the source (http://books.google.com/books?id=J1elAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) you're citing confirms my suspicions about the attack not being Finnish but a staged pretext for an invasion and basically contradicts your entire statement? All the other sources on the "Shelling of Mainila" I found after some searching claimed the same thing. In fact, the only source I could find that claimed it was a Finnish attack was the Soviet government at the time. A source, I might add, which has about the same amount credibility on the issue of proving the attack as the Johnson Administration would on proving the Gulf of Tonkin incident (i.e none).

All semblance of proletarian control in the Soviet Union had died out long before the Winter War.

Communist don't pick sides in wars between capitalist nations, but if one is going to, I'd say picking the imperialist aggressor nation isn't the best choice.

The idea that Finland attacked the USSR is so ridiculous as to be comic. But, essentially Omsk is sort of right on that war. Baron Mannerheim, the dictator of Finland with the German name, was Finland's Pinochet, in fact that's an unfair insult to Pinochet.

In the suppression of the Finnish Revolution in 1919, Mannerheim actually managed to kill about a quarter of the entire Finnish working class! Which is why Finland, despite all that Soviet "imperialist aggression," had proportionally the biggest and strongest Communist Party of any Western European country after WWII, as most Finnish workers, after the initial chauvinist hysteria about being invaded wore off, were rooting for the Soviet invaders not their Nazi collaborating dictator Mannerheim.

But does that mean the invasion was a good thing? Hell, no! It was the worst military humiliation the Red Army ever suffered. The attempt to impose a Soviet regime in Finland by force, right after the Great Terror and tens of thousands of Finnish workers and communists who had fled to Finland from Mannerheim being arrested, jailed and killed, was a tremendous flop politically.

It pushed Finland even further into the arms of Hitler, and by discrediting the Soviet army as a military force, greatly facilitated the invasion of the Soviet Union by Hitler.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

And that we must pursue a firm policy against people of that kind. It may be oversimplified but that is not the point, I wasn't going to read Molotov for a detailed account of why Hitler was bad. My point was that for a fascist (as he got calles), his ideao of having a fiem policy would be counter-productive.

Of course Molotov wasn't a fascist. And he was for "pursuing a firm policy" against absolutely anybody who disagreed with Stalin for any reason.

But it's interesting that, even half a century after the Hitler-Stalin pact, he describes Hitler in ways that, compared to the way he talks about Trotsky, sound downright friendly.

-M.H.-

[Igor]

The idea that Finland attacked the USSR is so ridiculous as to be comic. But, essentially Omsk is sort of right on that war. Baron Mannerheim, the dictator of Finland with the German name, was Finland's Pinochet, in fact that's an unfair insult to Pinochet.


No love for Mannerheim but he wasn't the dictator of Finland at any point after perhaps the Civil War when he commited his worst crimes in the charge of the White Finnish government. But due to his kind of inconvenient connections, what with being thoroughly the Czar's creature who spoke better Russian than Finnish, he fell into irrelevance during the fairly Russophobic interwar years in Finland. He became relevant only during the Winter War again and he wasn't a dictator, he was just the commanding officer of the military and in charge of Finnish war effort. Political power in Helsinki, of the Kallio and Ryti government, went nowhere.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Of course Molotov wasn't a fascist. And he was for "pursuing a firm policy" against absolutely anybody who disagreed with Stalin for any reason.

But it's interesting that, even half a century after the Hitler-Stalin pact, he describes Hitler in ways that, compared to the way he talks about Trotsky, sound downright friendly.

-M.H.-

Your point being?

[blake 3:17]

Also, this thread is just everything that's wrong with Revleft, with the 'Stalin v Trotsky' thing and with the wider left in general. Some of you just don't get it. Nobody in the real world gives a shit.


Some people care. The either/or of the debate is a pretty tedious and circular one. Maybe the more important question is why has it stuck around for 80 years?

[Geiseric]

This is pointless indeed because everybody should understand that Stalin was the gravedigger of the russian revolution, who pushed for bureaucratic control by the now purged soviet state over the working class. The thefts done to the working class by the russian bureaucracy couldn't of happened without SioC, i.e. Stalinism. it wasn't capitalist though, everything the bureaucracy did was completely illegal by soviet laws.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Maybe the more important question is why has it stuck around for 80 years?

A cataclysmic and insular failure on the left?

I think also the cult of Stalin (and i'm guessing Lenin, Trotsky et al.) played a large role. I know that my great-grandfather, who was no fool, used to 'drink to Uncle Joe' and was tearful when the old dictator died. I guess that hangers-on of such an attitude have fostered a culture where, for most of the 20th century, you were either a Marxist-Leninist or you were a Trotskyist, and that was the intra-Socialist political battle.

Old habits die hard, I guess.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Some people care. The either/or of the debate is a pretty tedious and circular one. Maybe the more important question is why has it stuck around for 80 years?

Because people are ideologically committed to it.


This is pointless indeed because everybody should understand that Stalin was the gravedigger of the russian revolution

History was the gravedigger of the russian revolution.

[A Marxist Historian]

A cataclysmic and insular failure on the left?

I think also the cult of Stalin (and i'm guessing Lenin, Trotsky et al.) played a large role. I know that my great-grandfather, who was no fool, used to 'drink to Uncle Joe' and was tearful when the old dictator died. I guess that hangers-on of such an attitude have fostered a culture where, for most of the 20th century, you were either a Marxist-Leninist or you were a Trotskyist, and that was the intra-Socialist political battle.

Old habits die hard, I guess.

There has only been one successful workers revolution thus far in history, and that was the Bolshevik Revolution.

So, until there is another, for anybody serious about workers revolution the Bolshevik Revolution is our heritage and our model. Didn't succeed, but like the old saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Trying to reinvent the wheel by coming up with another revolutionary model is a waste of time, as demonstrated by the miserable failure of all attempts thereto.

So yes, Stalin v. Trotsky v. the anarchists etc. is the question of questions, what all Revleft threads inevitably devolve to.

And cannot be anything else, if the forum is genuinely for leftist revolutionaries who believe in the power of the working class.

-M.H.-

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=A Marxist Historian;2500801]There has only been one successful workers revolution thus far in history, and that was the Bolshevik Revolution.

Successful, you say? What exactly was successful about the revolution? Sure, initially the bourgeoisie was overthrown, but the revolution died amongst civil war, State Capitalism (Lenin's words and aims, not mine), and by the late 1920s/early 1930s, the idea of genuine proletarian democracy had been crushed under the political dictatorship of the Stalin wing of the Bolshevik party. There was war in the 1940s and from 1956 onwards, we had a move away from class struggle to class collaboration with the realpolitik foreign policy of 'peaceful co-existence', detente and the movement of spending from domestic production to cold war military spending, right up until 1991. From 1917 to 1991, there was not one period where the USSR was moving positively towards Socialism, unless you count the 1930s which, with its endless famines, 'disappearances' and show trials, exiles and executions, isn't really a particularly appealing vision of the future.


So, until there is another, for anybody serious about workers revolution the Bolshevik Revolution is our heritage and our model. Didn't succeed, but like the old saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Trying to reinvent the wheel by coming up with another revolutionary model is a waste of time, as demonstrated by the miserable failure of all attempts thereto.

Well, isn't this a miserable idea of the future. Quoting some old, cheap saying is not making a point. If at first your idea ends up imploding in on itself after decades of repression, stagnation and decline, then i'd say you'd have to be really quite dense and idiotic to try the same again.

[Peoples' War]

State Capitalism (Lenin's words and aims, not mine)I'll ask you to stop using this argument. It's a critique of something Lenin said/wrote that was taken out of context, and completely turned around. The SPGB like to use it a lot, but are clearly making fools of themselves doing so.

You can read Lenin write about what the "ultra-left" at the time said about it, in "Left Wing Childishness" (not to be confused with "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder").

What Lenin was basically saying was that State capitalism would be better than what they had before, and that the transition economy, would begin as a form of state capitalism, geared toward the working class. We are also looking at "state capitalism" in the context of workers holding political power, not in the context of the workers not having power as would be the analysis of Stalin's Russia.