How would the world have changed if Trostky had been the leader of the USSR

[Comrade Nasser]

How do you believe the world would have been different, specifically in the USSR. This is all a hypothetical situation not necessarily a serious discussion. I believe in the long run Trostky would have been a better leader than Stalin was. Maybe that's just my anarchist bias shining through :grin: So, what's your guy's opinions on this situation?

[Questionable]

I'm not much for hypothetical history, but may I ask when you cite your anarchism as justification for admiring Trotsky over Stalin? Neither of them were afraid of using authoritarianism, most certainly not Trotsky.

[Skyhilist]

Trostky would have been a better leader than Stalin was. Maybe that's just my anarchist bias shining through

Does, erm, the phrase "Kronstadt Rebellion" ring a bell?

[Le Socialiste]

I don't think you can wholly attribute what happened in the USSR post-Lenin to Stalin's personality and leadership. He was a key, integral aspect of it all, but the party had already assumed an isolationist, substitutionist trajectory before Stalin fully solidified his position within it. Material conditions, both within Russia and around the world, developed the relations and circumstances that transformed the Bolsheviks into the monolithic, top-down entity it became. Bureaucratism and state management of emerging state capitalist relations rendered the Bolsheviks a pale shade of what they formerly were. I don't think Trotsky could have altered this course, even if he'd wanted to (in part because, as a Marxist and historical materialist, it is clear that the 'great man' theory doesn't hold up). As for Trotsky being a 'less authoritarian' figure, he did lead the Red Army, argue for the militarization of labor during the civil war, and push for the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion. Now, I'm not going to draw judgement on these because I think it would distract from the point I'm trying to make. But in the end it's all just speculation.

[Ostrinski]

One of the most admirable things that Trotsky did was to decline going for something like a coup even when he acknowledged the possibility and opportunity of doing so.

Simply put, had Trotsky come to power in Stalin's stead, he would not have been the Trotsky that we regard so positively today. History would remember him as a dictator instead of an oppositionalist, and it's hard to say whether or not his rule would have been as brutal or intense as Stalin's, but it doesn't really matter because he would have been forced to assume the same stake in history as Stalin.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

What would have happened if, say Zinoviev and Kamenev joined the LO earlier, or if Lenin had recovered and Stalin's career ruined? These are scenarios that might have caused Trotsky to emerge as the key leader of the CPSU, that would not have required a coup. I think you are right, comrade Ostrinski, that many things might have happened along similar lines. However, some small differences might have made a critical difference. Suppose the corruption and degeneration of the CI was turned around? Maybe Hitler would not have come to power in Germany. Maybe the Spanish Civil War would have had a happy ending. Perhaps the Chinese Revolution would not have been delayed by two decades and been born deformed. Any and all of these would have changed world history in a profound way. If, if, if, if,. . . .

[Thirsty Crow]

The economic program argued for by the Left Opposition was actually exercised in practice by the Stalinist bureaucracy. Disregarding the confused mutterings about how things should be handled differently on the ground (how would oppositionists not be confused when the ground underneath their feet was sweeped away - with Stalin proving himself more than capable of upholding the key tenet of the opposition), we can safely assume that not much would be changed. Would Trotsky emerge out of this mess of "primitive socialist accumulation" as the Trotsky that is known today?

[Ostrinski]

Indeed the Stalinist bureaucracy did put into effect the Left Opposition's domestic economic plan, which in fact is what defined their being the "Left" Opposition (the Right Opposition in contrast to initiatives toward industrial planning and collectivization argued for an indefinite extension of the NEP). The other noteworthy part of the Left Opposition's program was the lift of the ban on factions, which is probably the only thing that made them the last somewhat revolutionary force in the Soviet Union along with their rejection of Socialism in One Country.

But had the Left Opposition managed to defeat Stalin, who knows if they would have made good on their promise to lift the ban? In a grimly ironic way, the defeat of the Left Opposition by Stalin can from a certain perspective be seen as history's way of absolving the LO from the less romantic legacy they would have been forced to wear around their neck had they been thrust into what would become the Stalinist bureaucracy's historic functions.

At the end of the day, the Soviet Union was fucked, the political instability and crisis that defined the 1920's Soviet political culture only reflected that, and Trotsky understood that.

[Thirsty Crow]

But had the Left Opposition managed to defeat Stalin, who knows if they would have made good on their promise to lift the ban?
I don't think this is a crucial factor in this what-if situation, since they would by the very logic of primitive socialist accumulation be forced to preside over a virtual disintegration of the working class as a class-for-itself and as a political subject which was already on its knees (the personae beheading it would change). And that is to leave out that the notion of proletarian democracy peddled by the Opposition was faulty at best, and at worst - and argument for a less sever intra-party discipline while the bureaucratic structures would be left intact.


At the end of the day, the Soviet Union was fucked, the political instability and crisis that defined the 1920's Soviet political culture only reflected that, and Trotsky understood that. I don't think that Trotsky's concilliatory attitude was anywhere near a clear understanding of what's happening, or to word it better, it was this practical attitude that ruled the day and there was no clear understanding. When did it dawn on him that what he was witnessing was the formation of ruling class different from the proletariat? That's the price the Opposition was to pay for playing a "loyal opposition" role (disregarding the ramblings of Stalinists), and thus his assessment of the bureaucracy was severely crippled, to the point that he never abandoned the unconditional defense of the Union.

Finally, I'd suggest this piece as a well worth reading material regarding this problem:

http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-left-opposition-rise-stalinism-theory-practice-john-eric-marot

[Comrade Nasser]

Thanks everyone. Lol I didn't think everyone would get so into it. I am still firm in my belief that Trostky may have been the better choice over Stalin, but who knows? This is all speculation.

[Geiseric]

Trotsky was pushing for industrialization in 1925, so no it wouldn't of been as brutal and dictatorial if they started it back then instead in 1930, simply because they would of had more time and breathing space due to the lack of somebody about to invade in a few years (Hitler). The ban on factions is another thing that I can't see anybody objectively disagreeing with in hindsight.

The purges also wouldn't of happened, maybe the right opposition would of been kicked out of the bolshevik party, but when purges happened during Lenin's time, nobody was shot straight up. Only counter revolutionaries had that happen to them.

[Let's Get Free]

I think Trotsky would have indeed eventually made his peace with bureaucracy, personal rule, inequality, socialism in one country, Thermodorean decadence, and all the other bad stuff he later associated with the name of Stalin.

[Art Vandelay]

I think Trotsky would have indeed eventually made his peace with bureaucracy, personal rule, inequality, socialism in one country, Thermodorean decadence, and all the other bad stuff he later associated with the name of Stalin.

This is a blanket statement and doesn`t really add anything to the discussion, perhaps you could add some substance to this premise and we could see if what you are saying here has merit.

[Let's Get Free]

This is a blanket statement and doesn`t really add anything to the discussion, perhaps you could add some substance to this premise and we could see if what you are saying here has merit.

well, the entrenchment of a new oppressive ruling class and it's consolidation of political and economic power was clear by 1921, long before Mr. Stalin got to assume power. Unless Trotsky developed superhuman powers to be able to fly in the face of material conditions, there wasn't much he could have done combat those things, even if he truly desired to do so. Though, you could probably say that Trotsky wouldn't have replicated two of Stalin's biggest mistakes, the non-aggression pact with the Nazis and the purges.

[Crabbensmasher]

I'd be curious to see how WWII would've turned out for the Soviets had Trotsky been in charge.
The fierce resistance that Stalin put up fighting off German aggression turned out to be an amazing propaganda tool. Not to mention the Eastern bloc countries being "liberated" as the war was winding down. Really, I think it all comes down to how they would've handled WWII

[Comrade Nasser]

I'm not much for hypothetical history, but may I ask when you cite your anarchism as justification for admiring Trotsky over Stalin? Neither of them were afraid of using authoritarianism, most certainly not Trotsky.

Well Questionable, this was meant to be a hypothetical question. The reason I admire Trotsky over Stalin is that Stalin was known for being a strong ruler who would crush any and whatsoever opposition that came his way, including revolutions and revolutionaries who spoke out against him (Myself identifying as an Anarchist, I don't believe I would have been on good terms with Stalin and his government). Leon Trotsky is just one example of the many opponents silenced by Joseph Stalin lol. Now i'm not saying that Trotsky would not have done the same things that Stalin did, but it's just interesting to speculate how if things had happened differently at certain points in history how the world may have changed.

[Geiseric]

Well Questionable, this was meant to be a hypothetical question. The reason I admire Trotsky over Stalin is that Stalin was known for being a strong ruler who would crush any and whatsoever opposition that came his way, including revolutions and revolutionaries who spoke out against him (Myself identifying as an Anarchist, I don't believe I would have been on good terms with Stalin and his government). Leon Trotsky is just one example of the many opponents silenced by Joseph Stalin lol. Now i'm not saying that Trotsky would not have done the same things that Stalin did, but it's just interesting to speculate how if things had happened differently at certain points in history how the world may have changed.

Comrade he was kicked out of the USSR and killed by a Stalinist assassin, I'd be hard pressed to find better evidence that he wouldn't of done stuff drastically different than Stalin, who saw him as a threat.

[Art Vandelay]

Comrade he was kicked out of the USSR and killed by a Stalinist assassin, I'd be hard pressed to find better evidence that he wouldn't of done stuff drastically different than Stalin, who saw him as a threat.

It must be said, however, that Trotsky was also known for his ruthless suppression of dissent; not that this should be chastised however.

Leftist Hooligan, I'm not sure that you would of gotten along so well with Trotsky either.

[Geiseric]

It must be said, however, that Trotsky was also known for his ruthless suppression of dissent; not that this should be chastised however.

Leftist Hooligan, I'm not sure that you would of gotten along so well with Trotsky either.

Well obviously he suppressed whatever got in the way of soviet power. That was the context with Trotsky, Stalin was suppressing any political internationalists, as well as the right opposition, not only in fSU politics but also internationally through the Comintern, and communist parties worldwide, in order to support his isolationist foreign policy at times and his war with Germany at others. But the point was preserving the rule of the state which was in charge, and its members such as Beria and Khrushchev preserving their positions as public officials, who had a higher standard of living than the other workers.

[human strike]

I suppose we wouldn't have Trotskyism today (at least not in its current form) and for that reason alone I think we must regret that Trotsky didn't become "leader of the USSR". ;)1

[Zealot]

Though, you could probably say that Trotsky wouldn't have replicated two of Stalin's biggest mistakes, the non-aggression pact with the Nazis and the purges.

Both of those almost certainly would have taken place under Trotsky as well.

[MP5]

I think WW2 would have been handled much differently had Trotsky been at the helm instead of Stalin. The one unforgivable mistake Stalin made was signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Even as the Nazis where building up on the Russian border and Stalins military generals where telling him that the Nazis would attack Stalin still did not believe that Hitler would double cross him. He was far to overconfident in himself and he underestimated just how imperialist and fanatical the Nazis where.

Trotsky on the other hand would never have signed the non aggression pact. Also since he had been the leader of the Red army he actually had experience in military leadership unlike Stalin. He was also far more militant then Stalin was in many ways. He was even against signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk so there was no way in hell he would have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I believe he would have struck at the first sign of Nazi aggression against the Soviet union instead of basically letting the Nazis march right into the USSR.

It is far better to strike first and take the fight to the enemy then to have to fight them at your doorstep. So in my opinion the war would not have lasted nearly as long and Soviet casualties would have been greatly reduced.

As for what would have happened post WW2 in the USSR things probably would not have been much different with Trotsky as leader. He was just as brutal as Stalin in crushing resistance but he was not as Machiavellian as Stalin was so i don't think he would have consolidated power like Stalin did. Stalin became a Totalitarian dictator who was so paranoid of any threat to his power that he started the needless purges of party members. I don't think Trotsky would have done that and i don't think there would have been the mass fear to go against Trotsky in anyway as was the case with Stalin. Stalin could not accept the fact that he was wrong on anything and that was his fatal mistake.

[feeLtheLove]

Can't really say.
Like everyone else here, I think that if Trotsky did become leader of the USSR he might not have been the oppositionist to Stalin's regime we all know and admire....well most of us admire him. However, I can assure you there wouldn't have been any great purges, no treaty with Hitler. And let's keep in mind the revolutions around the Soviet Union that were influenced by Stalinism, such as China, they might not have been Stalinist. Might not have happened at all. Who knows? If they had happened they wouldn't have been Stalinist, they could have been Bolshevik-Leninist.

Oh and there would be no ""Trotskyism" just Leninsm or Bolshevik-Leninsm.

[Zealot]

I think WW2 would have been handled much differently had Trotsky been at the helm instead of Stalin. The one unforgivable mistake Stalin made was signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Even as the Nazis where building up on the Russian border and Stalins military generals where telling him that the Nazis would attack Stalin still did not believe that Hitler would double cross him. He was far to overconfident in himself and he underestimated just how imperialist and fanatical the Nazis where.

This is false but a common misconception. It was no secret that Hitler was a hell-bent imperialist. This was the reason for the organisation of anti-fascist groups pre-WW2. I mean, Hitler was writing in the late 1920s that he wanted to invade Russia and Stalin was well aware of this.


Trotsky on the other hand would never have signed the non aggression pact. Also since he had been the leader of the Red army he actually had experience in military leadership unlike Stalin. He was also far more militant then Stalin was in many ways. He was even against signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk so there was no way in hell he would have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I believe he would have struck at the first sign of Nazi aggression against the Soviet union instead of basically letting the Nazis march right into the USSR.

This would have been suicide for the Soviet Union and I doubt Trotsky would have risked being the one to have his name ruined for allowing its destruction at the hands of the Nazis. Really, this smacks of Great Man theorism.


It is far better to strike first and take the fight to the enemy then to have to fight them at your doorstep. So in my opinion the war would not have lasted nearly as long and Soviet casualties would have been greatly reduced.

Something that Stalin had also considered doing, which was abandoned because the western powers would not agree to an alliance with the Soviets.


As for what would have happened post WW2 in the USSR things probably would not have been much different with Trotsky as leader. He was just as brutal as Stalin in crushing resistance but he was not as Machiavellian as Stalin was so i don't think he would have consolidated power like Stalin did. Stalin became a Totalitarian dictator who was so paranoid of any threat to his power that he started the needless purges of party members. I don't think Trotsky would have done that and i don't think there would have been the mass fear to go against Trotsky in anyway as was the case with Stalin. Stalin could not accept the fact that he was wrong on anything and that was his fatal mistake.

Well, yet again, these are nothing but Great Man theories. If it had have been Stalin sitting in Mexico organising a coup against Trotsky's government, we can be almost certain that Trotsky would have begun to purge people from their leadership positions.

[Blake's Baby]

Hitler wouldn't even invade the Soviet Union until Trotsky was dead. There's a story that he was asked 'what if the winner is neither you nor Stalin, but Trotsky?' and he flew into a rage. He was scared of Trotsky, and that's why it was necessary for Stalin to have Trotsky murdered before Hitler invaded the USSR.

So no assassination of Trotsky (because trotsky is in control of the USSR) might just mean no invasion of USSR, no defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies and indeed pro-Nazi, anti-Bolshevik governments in the UK and US in the 1930s and '40s.

[MP5]

This is false but a common misconception. It was no secret that Hitler was a hell-bent imperialist. This was the reason for the organisation of anti-fascist groups pre-WW2. I mean, Hitler was writing in the late 1920s that he wanted to invade Russia and Stalin was well aware of this.

It's also no secret that Stalin acted like someone in a stupor when the Nazi war machine was building up on the border. Not to mention that the only person he consulted about the non aggression pact with was his lapdog Molotov. The foreign policy group in the politburo had no clue as to his plans. This just goes to prove how much of a 1 man show it had become by then. Stalin was well aware that Hitler was planning to invade Russia one had to look no further then the Nazi propaganda films on the evils of the Jewish born Bolshevism and other such nonsense that the Nazis put out. Zhukov tried to get Stalin to stop the policy of appeasement but Stalin would not listen. Even after reports of heavy shelling reached Stalin he still would not let himself that Hitler double crossed him. He acted like he was in a coma and did absolutely nothing despite the fact that the military generals where frantic about preparing a offensive against the Nazis.



This would have been suicide for the Soviet Union and I doubt Trotsky would have risked being the one to have his name ruined for allowing its destruction at the hands of the Nazis. Really, this smacks of Great Man theorism. It would not have been suicide to strike first even if it was only somewhat before Operation Barbarossa. Anyone with military experience will tell you that you take the fight to the enemy as it is much easier to be on the offensive rather then being on the defensive after the enemy attacks you. Trotsky would have most likely known this and this does not smack of great man theorism. It smacks of common sense. So i doubt very much that Trotsky would have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as he hated fascism with a passion. I also seriously doubt that Trotsky would have had useless brownnosers like Molotov around anyway.


Something that Stalin had also considered doing, which was abandoned because the western powers would not agree to an alliance with the Soviets. Your right on that one. Stalin did consider it but the United Kingdom showed little to no willingness to enter into a alliance with the Soviets. This just shows how stupid Churchill was despite his great reputation as some almighty leader :rolleyes: . But it was still a mistake for Stalin not to hit first especially since the Nazis seemed to have no idea as to the Soviet military strength and in either case Hitler was far to bent on ethnic cleansing to listen to anyone.


Well, yet again, these are nothing but Great Man theories. If it had have been Stalin sitting in Mexico organising a coup against Trotsky's government, we can be almost certain that Trotsky would have begun to purge people from their leadership positions. It would not have been a bad idea actually to get rid of some dead weight like Molotov and Khrushchev who were nothing but Stalins bootlickers. But Trotsky did not show the same amount of paranoia as Stalin did. He was just as ruthless yes but there is a difference in being ruthless and being overly paranoid. So i don't think the endless purges of any perceived threat to his power real or imagined would have gone on. No doubt there would have been a purge of those loyal to Stalin but as they were useless anyway this would not have been a bad thing.

[Zealot]

Hitler wouldn't even invade the Soviet Union until Trotsky was dead. There's a story that he was asked 'what if the winner is neither you nor Stalin, but Trotsky?' and he flew into a rage. He was scared of Trotsky, and that's why it was necessary for Stalin to have Trotsky murdered before Hitler invaded the USSR.

So no assassination of Trotsky (because trotsky is in control of the USSR) might just mean no invasion of USSR, no defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies and indeed pro-Nazi, anti-Bolshevik governments in the UK and US in the 1930s and '40s.

It's unfortunate to see you stoop to great man theories.


It's also no secret that Stalin acted like someone in a stupor when the Nazi war machine was building up on the border. Not to mention that the only person he consulted about the non aggression pact with was his lapdog Molotov. The foreign policy group in the politburo had no clue as to his plans. This just goes to prove how much of a 1 man show it had become by then. Stalin was well aware that Hitler was planning to invade Russia one had to look no further then the Nazi propaganda films on the evils of the Jewish born Bolshevism and other such nonsense that the Nazis put out. Zhukov tried to get Stalin to stop the policy of appeasement but Stalin would not listen. Even after reports of heavy shelling reached Stalin he still would not let himself that Hitler double crossed him. He acted like he was in a coma and did absolutely nothing despite the fact that the military generals where frantic about preparing a offensive against the Nazis.

This is false. Steven Main has written something addressing this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/153001?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101691696241



It would not have been suicide to strike first even if it was only somewhat before Operation Barbarossa. Anyone with military experience will tell you that you take the fight to the enemy as it is much easier to be on the offensive rather then being on the defensive after the enemy attacks you. Trotsky would have most likely known this and this does not smack of great man theorism. It smacks of common sense. So i doubt very much that Trotsky would have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as he hated fascism with a passion. I also seriously doubt that Trotsky would have had useless brownnosers like Molotov around anyway.

Did you know Trotsky personally? As far as I'm concerned, given the reality of the situation, Trotsky would have acted in a similar way. What smacks of common sense is the fact that a first strike against the Nazis, without an alliance with the other major powers, quite possibly would have pushed those other powers to seek an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union. And in that case, we would be talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1930s and Trotsky's utterly incompetent leadership. Of course, I don't believe that Trotsky would have actually been that incompetent but a lot of people here seem to.


It would not have been a bad idea actually to get rid of some dead weight like Molotov and Khrushchev who were nothing but Stalins bootlickers. But Trotsky did not show the same amount of paranoia as Stalin did. He was just as ruthless yes but there is a difference in being ruthless and being overly paranoid. So i don't think the endless purges of any perceived threat to his power real or imagined would have gone on. No doubt there would have been a purge of those loyal to Stalin but as they were useless anyway this would not have been a bad thing.

Ah, so there would have been purges but you don't care to acknowledge it.

[Geiseric]

It's unfortunate to see you stoop to great man theories.



This is false. Steven Main has written something addressing this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/153001?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101691696241




Did you know Trotsky personally? As far as I'm concerned, given the reality of the situation, Trotsky would have acted in a similar way. What smacks of common sense is the fact that a first strike against the Nazis, without an alliance with the other major powers, quite possibly would have pushed those other powers to seek an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union. And in that case, we would be talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1930s and Trotsky's utterly incompetent leadership. Of course, I don't believe that Trotsky would have actually been that incompetent but a lot of people here seem to.



Ah, so there would have been purges but you don't care to acknowledge it.
Why don't you just stop? Seriously you're in denial about history, with seemingly basic stuff. NO STALIN WAS RIGHT BEFORE WW2 BECAUSE THIS PERSON SAID SO.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well obviously he suppressed whatever got in the way of soviet power.
Yeah, obviously.
Because, obviously, this is a matter of definition, arising from the divinization of this great man.

[Zealot]

Why don't you just stop? Seriously you're in denial about history, with seemingly basic stuff. NO STALIN WAS RIGHT BEFORE WW2 BECAUSE THIS PERSON SAID SO.

Where did I say Stalin was right? All I'm trying to show is that Trotsky almost certainly wouldn't have been the great hippy leader that some think he would have been while also correcting some mistakes about Soviet history, one of which he has already admitted.

I really don't see how denying that Trotsky would have been any better than Stalin amounts to "denial about history" unless you're referring to actual history I've discussed, which is all very well-known.

[Luís Henrique]

How do you believe the world would have been different, specifically in the USSR. This is all a hypothetical situation not necessarily a serious discussion. I believe in the long run Trostky would have been a better leader than Stalin was. Maybe that's just my anarchist bias shining through :grin: So, what's your guy's opinions on this situation?

It depends on when he would have come into power (which implies, also, in alliance with whom).

In 1924, preempting the whole development of Stalinism? In 1928, in alliance with Bukharin?

In the latter case I would say Khrushchev's actions of 1953-6 would have been antecipated by a quarter century.

Luís Henrique

[Hiero]

Why don't you just stop? Seriously you're in denial about history, with seemingly basic stuff. Denial of hypothetical history?


NO STALIN WAS RIGHT BEFORE WW2 BECAUSE THIS PERSON SAID SO. That is called referencing.

Wow your post really annoyed me.

[Myrdin]

If Trotsky had come to power, we would be driving, or flying, floating cars by now. We would be living in an egalitarian society of the post-scarcity sort.

Now the real thing.

Yes, I am a major fan of Trotsky, his story, his theories. His biography features prominently on my shelf. But the truth is this - Power corrupts! Let us be honest about this, perhaps there would have been some changes. Perhaps! Because chances are big he would've been quite as harsh as Mister Stalin.

Now we give Stalin a lot of shit for what he did, now many of his measures were brutal and, indeed, worthy of no praise. But man's history is filled with difficult decisions and every generation is faced with them. Stalin did what he had to, he inherited a nation condemned to the plow and left it a nuclear power. Now tell me - who else can say the same?

Of course I'm not saying that he was a good guy, the proof pointing in the other goddamn direction is legion - but we might want to put all of this into context. His were difficult times - and the road to socialism is a long one indeed. Its construction requiring many stages and much time. I too think myself fonder of anarchy than of statism, but the time is not yet right. Not yet.

Have you considered that we are fans of Trotsky because our idealism was never disproven by evidence so major as Stalin's purges, the famines?

Just my two cents.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't think this is a crucial factor in this what-if situation, since they would by the very logic of primitive socialist accumulation be forced to preside over a virtual disintegration of the working class as a class-for-itself and as a political subject which was already on its knees (the personae beheading it would change). And that is to leave out that the notion of proletarian democracy peddled by the Opposition was faulty at best, and at worst - and argument for a less sever intra-party discipline while the bureaucratic structures would be left intact.

I don't think that Trotsky's concilliatory attitude was anywhere near a clear understanding of what's happening, or to word it better, it was this practical attitude that ruled the day and there was no clear understanding. When did it dawn on him that what he was witnessing was the formation of ruling class different from the proletariat? That's the price the Opposition was to pay for playing a "loyal opposition" role (disregarding the ramblings of Stalinists), and thus his assessment of the bureaucracy was severely crippled, to the point that he never abandoned the unconditional defense of the Union.

Finally, I'd suggest this piece as a well worth reading material regarding this problem:

http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-left-opposition-rise-stalinism-theory-practice-john-eric-marot
You leave out the international and political implications of the a victory of the LO. That is huge. The subjective has a role in history and by simply chanting "primitive capitalist accumulation," you can't obliterate it. A renewal of Leninist internationalism in the CI could have profoundly changed history -- it might not have, but I think the degree of economic determinism here is over the top. The LO in power would not have been able to quickly resolve the profound class contradictions that existed in the USSR. But the cost in lives and productivity of Stalin's usual panicked, reactive, and brutal method of collectivization of agriculture was not necessary. Failing any international revolutions, the USSR was ultimately doomed -- I think we all pretty much agree on that (except, perhaps our M-L friends). But to accept that Stalin's methodology was the only way possible is accepting what Papa Joe had to say, whole hog. It is not true. Unless you believe that the objective conditions for proletarian revolutions were absent in the world in the 1920s and 1930s, your line of reasoning is off.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

World war II starts much earlier, Stalin is the one admired by hip university students.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If Trotsky would've gotten into power via a coup, contrary to popular belief, the USSR would most likely have become even more bureaucratic than it was under stalin. The red army itself was then managed in a strictly hierarchical manner and was not going to dissipate anytime soon, and the recently instated NEP and the rise of rich farmers and peasants as consequence had already destabilised the country by a large amount.
In Trotsky's own words, "If Stalin had known what he was to become, he would shoot himself". Considering his initial refusal to begin a coup, the man most likely thought this way about himself as well.

We certainly wouldn't have seen a 'happy, democratic saviour' of Russia's now long killed off proletarian population - the more likely situation would have been Leon turning into a Russian napoleon and invading Europe.

God I'm tired. This reads like nails.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

We certainly wouldn't have seen a 'happy, democratic saviour' of Russia's now long killed off proletarian population - the more likely situation would have been Leon turning into a Russian napoleon and invading Europe.

God I'm tired. This reads like nails.

Thus the theory of permanent revolution!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I really dislike the manner in which the question was formulated; there was no position of the "King of the Soviet Union" that Stalin stole from Trotsky, even if certain bourgeois propagandists portray the Party debates in that manner. Surely the interesting question is not what would happen if Trotsky had been the foremost Politburo member, but what would have happened if the Left Opposition had convinced the Central Committee to adopt its line?

First of all, I very much doubt that the subjective conditions in Russia allowed for a victory of the LO - the proletariat was mostly gone, or associated with some of the strata of the bureaucracy, and the peasants were tired, demoralised, and hated everything the Left Opposition represented - the discipline of the years of the civil war, and the continuation of extraordinary policies.

But let us assume that the Party had adopted the LO line - what then? I am not sure the bureaucratic degeneration would have been slowed. It is tempting to equate the LO with the later Bolshevik-Leninist tendency, but in the early years the opposition was still unsure, and its theories undeveloped - Trotsky spent a lot of time seeing kulaks everywhere, if I recall correctly. And some of the proposals associated with the Left Opposition - the militarisation of the trade unions, partial repeal of the NEP - might have accelerated the degeneration.

Would the purges and the mass executions have occurred? The former almost definitely; as for the latter, they seem to have been provoked by a profound paranoia in Soviet administrative circles, concerning fascist spies etc. The Soviet Union would have remained surrounded by bourgeois and particularly fascist states even if it had adopted the LO line; so the paranoia would probably remain.

One can only hope Trotsky, Beloborodov and others would not have resorted to wild theories about Stalinist-Bukharinite fascist terrorist blocks to suppress the opposition, but that is not something that can be ascertained, in my view.

If the normalisation had not occurred, would the position of women have remained the same as it was in the civil war; would the fight against religion have stayed consistent and militant? That is a distinct possibility, but perhaps I am projecting.

Certainly, the construction of the planned economy would have proceeded earlier - so there would have been no grain crisis and no Ural-Siberian Method - and the foreign policy would have been more consistent. But would that have been enough to start a revolution in Germany? I doubt the subjective conditions for revolution existed at that time - the workers were too attached to the murderous SDP. Perhaps that could have been changed; I don't know.

Another area where one might expect a major improvement is China - without Soviet assistance to the GMD, and without a confused policy toward the CPC - well, perhaps there would be no socialist China in the thirties, but the revolution would have proceeded more smoothly and the resulting People's China would not have been as devastated.

That is all I can think of now.

[Comrade Nasser]

I really dislike the manner in which the question was formulated; there was no position of the "King of the Soviet Union" that Stalin stole from Trotsky, even if certain bourgeois propagandists portray the Party debates in that manner. Surely the interesting question is not what would happen if Trotsky had been the foremost Politburo member, but what would have happened if the Left Opposition had convinced the Central Committee to adopt its line?

First of all, I very much doubt that the subjective conditions in Russia allowed for a victory of the LO - the proletariat was mostly gone, or associated with some of the strata of the bureaucracy, and the peasants were tired, demoralised, and hated everything the Left Opposition represented - the discipline of the years of the civil war, and the continuation of extraordinary policies.

But let us assume that the Party had adopted the LO line - what then? I am not sure the bureaucratic degeneration would have been slowed. It is tempting to equate the LO with the later Bolshevik-Leninist tendency, but in the early years the opposition was still unsure, and its theories undeveloped - Trotsky spent a lot of time seeing kulaks everywhere, if I recall correctly. And some of the proposals associated with the Left Opposition - the militarisation of the trade unions, partial repeal of the NEP - might have accelerated the degeneration.

Would the purges and the mass executions have occurred? The former almost definitely; as for the latter, they seem to have been provoked by a profound paranoia in Soviet administrative circles, concerning fascist spies etc. The Soviet Union would have remained surrounded by bourgeois and particularly fascist states even if it had adopted the LO line; so the paranoia would probably remain.

One can only hope Trotsky, Beloborodov and others would not have resorted to wild theories about Stalinist-Bukharinite fascist terrorist blocks to suppress the opposition, but that is not something that can be ascertained, in my view.

If the normalisation had not occurred, would the position of women have remained the same as it was in the civil war; would the fight against religion have stayed consistent and militant? That is a distinct possibility, but perhaps I am projecting.

Certainly, the construction of the planned economy would have proceeded earlier - so there would have been no grain crisis and no Ural-Siberian Method - and the foreign policy would have been more consistent. But would that have been enough to start a revolution in Germany? I doubt the subjective conditions for revolution existed at that time - the workers were too attached to the murderous SDP. Perhaps that could have been changed; I don't know.

Another area where one might expect a major improvement is China - without Soviet assistance to the GMD, and without a confused policy toward the CPC - well, perhaps there would be no socialist China in the thirties, but the revolution would have proceeded more smoothly and the resulting People's China would not have been as devastated.

That is all I can think of now.

Sorry mate i'm a newbie

[Comrade Nasser]

Lulz probably not. I would probably be the first one lined up at the firing range if Trotsky had been the leader of the USSR.

[LOLseph Stalin]

For those who think Trotsky would have been an anti-authoritarian alternative to Stalin you're wrong. He wasn't afraid to use force when needed. However, I don't think there would have been purges to the same extent, certainly not purges of the Bolshevik party anyway.

Of course Trotsky would have been pushing for more revolutions in other countries too rather than focusing exclusively on the industrialization of the Soviet Union. So I don't think the Soviet Union would have become a super power, at least not as fast as it did if at all.

Can't forget about the treaty with Hitler either. I doubt Trotsky would have signed that.

[Desy]

For those who think Trotsky would have been an anti-authoritarian alternative to Stalin you're wrong. He wasn't afraid to use force when needed. However, I don't think there would have been purges to the same extent, certainly not purges of the Bolshevik party anyway.

Of course Trotsky would have been pushing for more revolutions in other countries too rather than focusing exclusively on the industrialization of the Soviet Union. So I don't think the Soviet Union would have become a super power, at least not as fast as it did if at all.

Can't forget about the treaty with Hitler either. I doubt Trotsky would have signed that.

Of course Trotsky wouldn't have been the anti-authoritarian alternative to Stalin. However, and I have just dipped into Trortsky, Comrade Trotsky would have been a great alternative to homeboy Stalin. Trotsky was not a peace and love hippy, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he wanted permanent revolution and thought it wouldn't work in one country. Comrade L. Trotsky didn't and wouldn't stand for reactionaries and wasn't scared to make an example of them. Trotsky was showing the world that the bourgeois were just as human as the working class they were oppressing.

Lolsretph Stalin. You pointed out all the problems with Stalin in your second and third paragraph. Now what I think you're missing from people thinking Trotsky would be better is because, and in my opinion, Leon would have stayed in power up till world wide socialism was achieved and let the people put in charge the leaders who they saw best fit so communism would be achieved.

Now this is not what Stalin would do. You see, Homeboy Stalin was an opportunist feel good scum. He abused his opportunity to help the people, which shows he was only apart of the revolution to just feel good about himself, and he messed up a lot of proletarians lives - scum.

Leon Trotsky was far from perfect, but no homeboy Stalin.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry mate i'm a newbie

No problem; sorry for the dickish attitude. When you hear liberals talking about Lenin's "successor", you develop an alergy.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

If the LO had been able to take over the RCP, many things would have been different. There would again have been political discussions and fights in the party, that did not lead to reprisals, expulsions, and exile. Party leaders would again begin to be selected based on merit and capacities vs. fealty to the Triuvirate/Duumvirate/Stalin. Industrial and agrarian policy would have been carried out in a planned and reasoned manner instead of the panicked freak-out that was Stalin's method of collecitivization and industrialization. Soviet agriculture did not fully recover for several DECADES.

But the most important difference would have been in international affairs. The CI would have again become an instrument of world revolution, not simply an extension of the Soviet Bureaucracy. If you read Trotsky's writings on Germany in the late 20s and early 30's, it is easy to conclude that policies based on those might have actually prevented Hitler from taking power.

As for the pact with Hitler, Trotsky might have made some agreement with Hitler to forestall the fight. I doubt it, but it would not have been impossible. He would not have purged all of his top generals -- and he would have used the excellent intelligence he received to crush the Germans long before they managed to kill 20 million Soviet citizens.

And Confused, boy do you live up to your name. The theory of Permanent Revolution has nothing to do with imposing the dotp with bayonets. Again, I recommend you do some research before you ignorantly waddle into these discussions.

[Diogenese]

It was impossible for Trotsky to be the Soviet leader, by his own admission, because of his jewish ancestry. I find it ridiculous to equate a religious belief as an ethnicity but regardless Stalin used this as propaganda to demonize Trotsky.

[Geiseric]

It was impossible for Trotsky to be the Soviet leader, by his own admission, because of his jewish ancestry. I find it ridiculous to equate a religious belief as an ethnicity but regardless Stalin used this as propaganda to demonize Trotsky.

Trotsky wasn't really jewish as an adult, any more than I'm a catholic (i've never been to church once since I was 10). Your reasoning applies with the propaganda from the White army, who used Trotsky and other jewish communist leaders heritage as excuses for pogroms.

[Old Bolshie]

Trotsky wasn't really jewish as an adult, any more than I'm a catholic (i've never been to church once since I was 10). Your reasoning applies with the propaganda from the White army, who used Trotsky and other jewish communist leaders heritage as excuses for pogroms.

I think Diogenese was making reference to Trotsky's refusal to accept the post of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (other sources appoint to the post of Commissar of Internal Affairs) right afterwards the October Revolution because of his Jewish ancestry.

As far as the USSR would have changed if Trotsky had been the leader of the country it is hard to tell but based on his actions until his exile I would say that basically he would have continued Lenin's path: one party rule, democratic debate within the party, supreme political authority concentrated in collegial organs, repression of political opponents to the Bolsheviks, high commitment to the internationalization of the revolution, etc.

However, he also revealed to be more authoritarian than Lenin as the Trade Union issue showed and in that case I think he would have increased the degree of repression and centralization of power in USSR.

As far as the world goes the case is much more complex. Committed as he was to the world revolution as opposite to the SIOC I think that the turmoil of the capitalist world in 1929 would have been much better used by the Soviet Union to spread the revolution in Europe, especially in Germany. I don't think that we would have seen the sabotage of revolutions like it happen during the Spanish Civil War, nor coalitions of communist parties with liberals in Popular Fronts.

[rednordman]

we'd still be living like in the 1930s.*joke*

[Captain Ahab]

we'd still be living like in the 1930s.*joke*
:confused: I don't get it.




NOTE: I accidentally clicked edit to make my response, which i promptly removed. I did not change Captain Ahab's content in any way. -Rusty Shackleford

[Rusty Shackleford]

:confused: I don't get it.

because the debate is often criticized as only being good for people who are stuck in the 20s and 30s.

[Geiseric]

because the debate is often criticized as only being good for people who are stuck in the 20s and 30s.

Right and learning about marx and engels is only good for people in the mid 1840s. :thumbup1:

[goalkeeper]

Trotsky wasn't really jewish as an adult, any more than I'm a catholic (i've never been to church once since I was 10). Your reasoning applies with the propaganda from the White army, who used Trotsky and other jewish communist leaders heritage as excuses for pogroms.

There was a genuine concern among the Bolsheviks that they were seen as "a bunch of Jews" and foreigners (German agents or more curiously, Chinese). This is of course White Army propaganda; most communists were not Jews and most Jews were not communists. But nonetheless the Bolsheviks were really nervous of this label, doing such stuff as being sure to publish the names of "counterrevolutionaries" shot by the Cheka if they were Jewish in the civil war.

[Akshay!]

One thing is clear - if Trotsky had been the leader of the USSR, the name of this thread would be - "How would the world have changed if Stalin had been the leader of the USSR?"

And we'd probably be arguing "Do you think Stalin would've been less authoritarian?" :lol:

[Art Vandelay]

And we'd probably be arguing "Do you think Stalin would've been less authoritarian?" :lol:

I think people who frame the question in this fashion, really miss the point. First off, the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy is a false one; secondly, as Marxists, what should matter to us is not whether something was 'authoritarian' or 'libertarian' but whether or not it is advancing proletarian class interests.

[Sudsy]

The Nazis would have won.


clogic.eserver.org/2009/furr.pdf

No claims are ever 100%, but some of the evidence concerning Trostsky`s connection to the Nazis is worth looking at.

[Old Bolshie]

One thing is clear - if Trotsky had been the leader of the USSR, the name of this thread would be - "How would the world have changed if Stalin had been the leader of the USSR?"

And we'd probably be arguing "Do you think Stalin would've been less authoritarian?" :lol:

Unlike Trotsky, Stalin was an irrelevant figure in the revolution before he became the leader of USSR. He basically agreed with everything Lenin did and thought like a good yes-man also unlike Trotsky who had from the beginning a much more independent line from Lenin and disagreed with him several times.

I doubt that he would have done any meaningful opposition to Trotsky or even that he would have done any kind of opposition at all.

[Bostana]

we'd still be living like in the 1930s.*joke*

Oh god....leftist humor...

How do you believe the world would have been different, specifically in the USSR. This is all a hypothetical situation not necessarily a serious discussion. I believe in the long run Trostky would have been a better leader than Stalin was. Maybe that's just my anarchist bias shining through :grin: So, what's your guy's opinions on this situation?
I agree with what LOLseph Stalin said. Both men weren't virgins when it comes to using authoritarianism. Even Trotskyites (Trotskyists? Trots? Whatever) can't deny the Leon used authoritarianism and would have used authoritarianism if he did take his position of Lenin's heir. Stalin seemed foccused on making the Soviet Union a world superpower, and focused on the USSR (i.e. socialism in one country) which makes him more of a politician than a Marxist. Trotsky, I think, would have not cared whether the world recognized the Soviets as a world power. He most likely would have foccused on spreading revolutionary ideals and trying to start the universal revolution.

But we will never truly know.
Great question Comrade:)

[Geiseric]

The Nazis would have won.


clogic.eserver.org/2009/furr.pdf

No claims are ever 100%, but some of the evidence concerning Trostsky`s connection to the Nazis is worth looking at.

Dude stop trolling.

[Bostana]

The Nazis would have won.


clogic.eserver.org/2009/furr.pdf

No claims are ever 100%, but some of the evidence concerning Trostsky`s connection to the Nazis is worth looking at.

Just no.

Have you ever thought to yourself, "I wonder why the Nazis got so deep into the soviet union?" Well you see Stalin liquidated (which means killed) the Soviet generals. Short while after Hitler invaded. And since Stalin killed his generals, the soviet union had no defense strategy

[Tower of Bebel]

I ask myself whether Trotsky, as secretary-general of the CPR(Bolshevik), would have been able to substantially exercice more influence over the policies of the Comintern. Those policies were key to handling both the domestic and international issues that the USSR became confronted with. Without the defeat of the KPD for example, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Yet, although Trotsky had been an influencial figure in the ranks of the International, he still had to compete with the ideas of others like Zinoviev or Bucharin. Bucharin for example was able to decisively influence most of the programmatic discussions, hence the insistance on so called transitional demands since the mid-twenties. And since the Stalin-Trotsky devide was a genuine struggle for power on an international scale, what would have happened to this struggle in the different European Communist parties if Trotsky had won the USSR? You could say that Soviet leadership under Trotsky would have tipped the balance in favour of the Trotskyists, but I'm not so sure as I'm not very familiar with the history of many of the Communist parties in Europe.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Presumably, some of the kinds of strategies he wanted to take would have required a very different approach. The obvious one is that an internationalist would not have needed to expedite the program of industrialization, which was an act which necessitated the large scale exploitation of labor on the part of the State. World history could have been much different if the USSR as a whole focused more on internationalizing the revolution, and were successful at stopping fascism in its tracks, though there's no indication that it would have happened necessarily.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Stalin's leadership (and where a lot of people are most justified in their being leery at his "authoritarianism) is his willingness to use State power to punish peasants who failed to collectivize or ethnic groups which were seen as insufficiently loyal, in addition to his willingness to kill off good party members seen as a threat to his vision of what the CP should look like. These activities discredited the revolution in the eyes of many people and ultimately served to weaken the USSR.

Forced collectivization was a mistake all around, as were the policies enforced to ensure distribution. Naturally, aside from the tragic deaths of many peasants, it lessened the credibility of the whole revolution among that population in the long term. Running roughshod over the rights of a large demographic isn't something which has moralistic problems alone - there are very real material implications. You actually had Ukranians joining up with the (anti-Slav) Nazi armies in large numbers because of the resentment built up. As far as I know, Trotsky was pushing for a more bottom-up collectivization, or at least he was critical of the heavily bureaucratic approach of Stalin. Whether the famines and food shortage issues would have occurred or if they would have to the same degree is obviously too hard to say.

The ethnic map of the USSR changed drastically with Stalin's decisions to move ethnic groups here and there because some of them supported the Nazis. This policy was counter productive on a number of levels, and the deaths of innocent civilians during these ordeals is staggering. Tartars and Chechens were driven halfway across the USSR and a very high proportion died. People forget his plan to create a sort of national enclave for Jews, as if segregating people in small national republics was somehow a good idea. Would Trotsky have taken such policies?

That said, being a Jewish leader in a country generally suspicious of Jews might have required a bit of authoritarianism, and it also would have both legitimated and fueled anticommunist (particularly fascist) propaganda that Jews controlled the Communist movement.

[Rurkel]

The obvious one is that an internationalist would not have needed to expedite the program of industrialization, which was an act which necessitated the large scale exploitation of labor on the part of the State.
Well, a well-equipped army can greatly help, to, um, export the revolution, if you know what I'm talking about.

[Brutus]

Also trotsky wouldn't have started an anti semetic campaign, as Stalin did in the last few years of his life

[Art Vandelay]

Well, a well-equipped army can greatly help, to, um, export the revolution, if you know what I'm talking about.

Except that it can't. A revolution isn't made by a red army exporting the revolution on the end of a bayonet, but by the working class of their respecting states. Trotsky has generally been mischaracterized as entertaining the possibility of doing just that, however it remains nothing but a mischaracterization. This isn't to say that Trotsky wouldn't of offered any material support possible (including military) to any budding working class insurrection, however.

[Rurkel]

Well, I was being facetious. I don't think, though, that there was a way to escape a rather brutal industrialization of the USSR in the condition of world revolution failing, though Trotsky, with his emphasis on a degree of inter-party democracy probably would do it more rationally.

I also agree that he would also not engage in crypto-antisemitism of Stalin's later years, and would limit the Russian nationalist tendency more then Stalin did. This has the added bonus of there being less "National Bolshevism" in Russia today.

[TaylorS]

Despite being a Trotskyist, I have to say "not much". The USSR was basically screwed five ways to next Tuesday by the failure of the 1918 revolution in Germany and the damage wrought by the civil war. It's isolation and poverty meant it was forced to use rather oppressive State Capitalist means to power internal development so as it defend itself against invasion by the Capitalist powers. It certainly could not afford to support permanent revolution elsewhere. I do think the USSR would have remained more democratic and there would not have been the paranoid excesses of Stalin's purges, though.