Trotsky: counterrevolutionary?

[ILikeRevolution]

I hear a lot from anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists that Trotsky was an "opportunist," "counter-revolutionary," and even that he was opposed to the USSR's existence -- but that's all I hear, just strong criticisms but little evidence.

I'm guessing most of us know that Trotsky was critical of Stalin's era, but from the work of Trotsky I've read thus far, he supported the existence of the USSR and even praised certain characteristics of it under Stalin. Do any anti-Trotskyism tendencies mind filling me in on why they think Trotsky was anti-Leninism, counter-revolutionary, opportunist, etc..?

[Ostrinski]

It's not just Marxist-Leninists that feel that way, pretty much everyone else does as well. But for different reasons.

[Geiseric]

It's not just Marxist-Leninists that feel that way, pretty much everyone else does as well. But for different reasons.

Lol what are you talking about? Anybody with a firm grasp of history knows that Trotsky was the opposite of a counter revolutionary. I'm so sick of these threads that i'm not even going to reply if it's the same old shit that comes up in these.

First off to the OP Trotsky organized the red army, was popular enough to be voted as President of the Petrograd Soviet (Twice) and opposed the New Economic Plan, which was itself a counter revolutionary concession in the late 20's. I could be more specific and bring up dates and quotes, in 1925 is the first year that the Left Opposition put togather their economic plan, which called for collectivization of the Kulaks, which would help industrialization by ensuring steady food to be brought into the cities.

Stalin called the LO's plan basically a "Pipe dream," even though he tried to emulate it, albeit at an incredibly rushed pace, in 1930, during which he ordered the looting of poor as well as rich peasants, ensuring the hostility of a majority of the population, due to the fact that Kulaks owned about 70% of the farms at that point, whereas small farmers were in very desperate conditions.

[ind_com]

I hear a lot from anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists that Trotsky was an "opportunist," "counter-revolutionary," and even that he was opposed to the USSR's existence -- but that's all I hear, just strong criticisms but little evidence.

I'm guessing most of us know that Trotsky was critical of Stalin's era, but from the work of Trotsky I've read thus far, he supported the existence of the USSR and even praised certain characteristics of it under Stalin. Do any anti-Trotskyism tendencies mind filling me in on why they think Trotsky was anti-Leninism, counter-revolutionary, opportunist, etc..?

Trotsky became a counter-revolutionary in the years around his expulsion from the USSR, though he was one of the central leaders of the November Revolution. But more importantly, Trotskyism as a theory is a dead-end, and cannot be implemented by the proletariat to successfully carry out a revolution.

[Red Enemy]

I agree with what Ostrinski said, although I think he goes too far with it. I would argue that Trotsky became counter-revolutionary later in life. His continued defense of the actions of late Lenin, Russia as a DOTP, and his Degenerated Workers' State theories are testaments to that.

Modern Trotskyism is riddled with counter-revolutionary, social democratic, liberal, opportunist, and other petty-bourgeois tendencies.

[Riveraxis]

I haven't seen much reason to think he was counter-revolutionary.
Certain circumstances could best be described as "reactionary" but the man lived and breathed revolution.

As for his opposition to the Soviets- it was almost entirely opposition to the Soviet post-Lenin. Stalin was counter revolutionary. And so was the Soviet Union. That's why people the world over think communism equates to slave labor, remember? That was hardly Trotsky's fault.

[Geiseric]

I haven't seen much reason to think he was counter-revolutionary.
Certain circumstances could best be described as "reactionary" but the man lived and breathed revolution.

As for his opposition to the Soviets- it was almost entirely opposition to the Soviet post-Lenin. Stalin was counter revolutionary. And so was the Soviet Union. That's why people the world over think communism equates to slave labor, remember? That was hardly Trotsky's fault.

Trotsky wasn't anti Soviet, the soviets lost most meaning by the 1930s. He wanted to restore them to the democratic state they were started at, and was killed for it.

Also the DWS theory isn't counter revolutionary at all, I don't know how you could possibly make that connection. State Capitalism is a counter revolutionary theory that Kautsky, a world renown opportunist, came up with, with the sole purpose of discrediting the fSU, so technically anybody who believes that holds more of a reactionary position, since the State Cap theory was made by a reactionary, for reactionary purposes.

The planned economy was not counter revolutionary, and that economic expression of the DotP is the reason Trotsky defended the fSU. Because the economy wasn't run for profit, the exchange value of commodities matched the Use Value (Which will never ever happen in any kind of capitalism) and because there were no capitalists owning production, extracting labor value, whatsoever. The living standard fell dramatically, along with a resurgence of unemployment as soon as the restoration happened in the 90's. Obviously it was a process of degeneration back to capitalism (which is impossible to be administrated by a State completely, especially if the State doesn't own anything) otherwise the problems in today's capitalist russia would of been around for the past 60 years.

[Let's Get Free]

If we take into account him destroying workers democracy in the army, workplaces, etc., his repeated call for party dictatorship before, during and after he got expelled by the bureaucracy, not to mention his role in the suppression of genuinely revolutionary movements, ie the Makhnovists and Kronstadt, we can conclude that Trotsky was indeed a counterrevolutionary.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

If we take into account him destroying workers democracy in the army, workplaces, etc., his repeated call for party dictatorship before, during and after he got expelled by the bureaucracy, not to mention his role in the suppression of genuinely revolutionary movements, ie the Makhnovists and Kronstadt, we can conclude that Trotsky was indeed a counterrevolutionary.
Oh come on. If Trotsky had not instilled some kind of discipline in the Red Army the USSR would have been destroyed before 1920. The desire to save the Soviet Union -- the product of the only successful proletarian revolution in history, was based on the Bolsheviks internationalist position. Were the White armies "genuinely revolutionary" too? Anything but the Bolsheviks?:rolleyes:

[l'Enfermé]

Democracy in the army is a pretty great thing and it sounds very nice.

Unless you want to win a war, that is.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Democracy in the army is a pretty great thing and it sounds very nice.

Unless you want to win a war, that is.

It might work for purely proletarian detachments, which is why I think Stalin and Smirnov had half a point in the debate over democracy in the army, but in a demoralised peasant army? It proved disastrous.

As far as I know, the only tendency that would condemn Trotsky as counter-revolutionary, but not Lenin, are the Marxists-Leninists, and maybe those that uphold Mao Zedong Thought, if anyone considers them a separate tendency, and that condemnation, if I have understood correctly, does not rest on what they consider to be political errors by the Left Opposition, but on the alleged involvement of Trotsky and others in sabotage against the soviet state. And I do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there was a conspiracy of former members of the Left and United Oppositions, though given the paranoia over foreign spies and saboteurs that was prevalent in the Soviet Union in the thirties, and some very, very unconsidered statements by Trotsky, I can sort of see why that idea became widespread in soviet circles. And, again, if Trotsky wanted to overthrow soviet power, he was doing a fairly lousy job - dissociating himself from those that equated the Soviet Union with capitalist states, supporting the Soviet Union against fascist aggression etc. etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

Stalin called the LO's plan basically a "Pipe dream," even though he tried to emulate it, albeit at an incredibly rushed pace, in 1930, during which he ordered the looting of poor as well as rich peasants, ensuring the hostility of a majority of the population, due to the fact that Kulaks owned about 70% of the farms at that point, whereas small farmers were in very desperate conditions.
Stalin didn't "try to emulate" anything. Instead, he actually implemented the economic program of the Opposition, something which shouldn't have happened according to that same Opposition, due to the nature of the centrist bureaucracy. No wonder then that many of the oppositionists came closer and closer to that same bureaucracy, and that any possible ground for criticism - using the same method and means of struggle - was lost for good.

[hashem]

he was opposed to the USSR's existence

that is true. he dismissed the army before making peace with Central Powers. if Bolsheviks had not stopped him in time, USSR wouldnt have survived. he was willing to sacrifice the existence of USSR for his false "permanent revolution" theory.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

that is true. he dismissed the army before making peace with Central Powers. if Bolsheviks had not stopped him in time, USSR wouldnt have survived. he was willing to sacrifice the existence of USSR for his false "permanent revolution" theory.

The army disintegrated without Trotsky's help, and indeed Trotsky was one of the people that helped reorganise the demoralised Tsarist forces into the Red Army, and the detachments of sailors had proven ineffective in battles with the Germans. Trotsky's behaviour at the Brest-Litovsk conference was a serious political error, but Trotsky was hardly the only one to make that error, and he did not make the error due to counter-revolutionary motives.


Stalin didn't "try to emulate" anything. Instead, he actually implemented the economic program of the Opposition, something which shouldn't have happened according to that same Opposition, due to the nature of the centrist bureaucracy.

According to Trotsky and Zinoviev. Other members of the LO, Preobrazhensky for example, were more optimistic about the prospects of a planned economy in the Soviet Union.

[Thirsty Crow]

According to Trotsky and Zinoviev. Other members of the LO, Preobrazhensky for example, were more optimistic about the prospects of a planned economy in the Soviet Union.
Precisely. And is it any wonder that it was the same Preobrazhensky, among others, who openly concilliated with the Stalinist bureaucracy? And more importantly, what does that tell us about the method employed by the LO, or some of its proponents?


... but Trotsky was hardly the only one to make that error, and he did not make the error due to counter-revolutionary motives.

So it is the personal political motives that are fundamental to assessing a political figure?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Precisely. And is it any wonder that it was the same Preobrazhensky, among others, who openly concilliated with the Stalinist bureaucracy? And more importantly, what does that tell us about the method employed by the LO, or some of its proponents?

It tells us that they were consistent. All of them characterised the Soviet Union as a dictatorship of the proletariat, albeit a degenerated one, and advocated collectivisation and central planning. So when the Soviet government started the collectivisation campaign and moved toward central planning in all branches of industry, what were they supposed to so? Politely decline to contribute their expertise to the process because, hm, they really didn't like Stalin?


So it is the personal political motives that are fundamental to assessing a political figure?

I did not mean to imply that. Someone can sincerely consider themselves a revolutionary but make counterrevolutionary political errors - as the "revolutionary" defencists did. But overestimating the strength of the revoluionary forces, while a serious mistake that no one should make excuses for, is not counterrevolutionary, unless you think that Trotsky obstructed the Brest-Litovsk negotiations purposefully, in order to undermine the Soviet government.

[Hit The North]

State Capitalism is a counter revolutionary theory that Kautsky, a world renown opportunist, came up with, with the sole purpose of discrediting the fSU, so technically anybody who believes that holds more of a reactionary position, since the State Cap theory was made by a reactionary, for reactionary purposes.


What kind of argument is this? If a society's mode of production could be defined purely on the basis of who said what, or a theory assessed purely on the name of its author, then this would greatly simplify our analysis. Of course, it would have disastrous implications for what we consider a materialist analysis but, hey....

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What kind of argument is this? If a society's mode of production could be defined purely on the basis of who said what, or a theory assessed purely on the name of its author, then this would greatly simplify our analysis. Of course, it would have disastrous implications for what we consider a materialist analysis but, hey....

To be fair, Guthrie was responding to a post that applies the same sort of analysis to the theory of the deformed workers' state. Also, I don't think that the documented tendency of those who hold some version of "new class theories" a la Shachtman toward social democracy and worse is strictly speaking irrelevant when assessing the theory.

[Devrim]

State Capitalism is a counter revolutionary theory that Kautsky, a world renown opportunist, came up with, with the sole purpose of discrediting the fSU, so technically anybody who believes that holds more of a reactionary position, since the State Cap theory was made by a reactionary, for reactionary purposes.

Which is a pretty poor argument anyway even apart from the fact that it is factually incorrect.

The idea of state capitalism was first developed by Bukharin in 'Imperialism and World Economy' in 1915, as a stage of capitalist development, which is pretty much how most of the communist left sees it today. It was expanded upon as in how it was a danger in Russia in early 1918 by the left communists in the Russian party.

Kautsky first mentions it, without really developing the idea, in Terrorism and Communism, which was published in mid-1920. He merely uses it as a phrase, and doesn't really expand upon it.

If that were enough, we could trace the idea back to the older Liebkneckt, who used the term, but again didn't develop it, in an article in 1896.

Anyway, it is certainly no invention of Kautsky's. Rather it is a term that had become quite commonly used in the circles of left-wing politics by that time, and he picked up on it.

Devrim

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Precisely. And is it any wonder that it was the same Preobrazhensky, among others, who openly concilliated with the Stalinist bureaucracy? And more importantly, what does that tell us about the method employed by the LO, or some of its proponents?


So it is the personal political motives that are fundamental to assessing a political figure?
Comrade, the LO and Trotsky characterized Stalin as a "centrist." And the Soviet Bureaucracy as an unstable and highly contradictory formation. History showed this to be correct. Stalin implemented collectivization and industrialization in his usual ham-fisted, panicked, reactive way. This was, in a very crude and partial way, the program of the LO. The critical difference between Stalin and the LO was on the issue of internationalism. Stalin was a nationalist. And the Comintern, which early on showed immense promise, under Zinoviev's and later Stalin's leadership, became a cesspool of petty factional intrigues -- and a tool used AGAINST international revolution. The LOers that went over to Stalin in 1928 and 1929 were deeply demoralized (for obvious reasons) and were looking for a way to surrender.

Trotsky writes that revolutions are "great devourers of men." And so they are. He saw many stalwart comrades become pillars of the bureaucracy. It says nothing about the method of the LO. Many who were at one time stalwart Marxists went further -- going over to the bourgeoisie (e.g., Plekhanov, Kautsky, Shachtman, etc.). People lose their way comrade. There is always pressure against revolutionaries.

Your devotion to abstract purity goes beyond the bounds of revolutionary principle. Events do not happen in a test tube. History is plenty messy. The Russian Revolution was ultimately decisively defeated as was the LO. It is immensely important to study and understand why that was.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Comrade, the LO and Trotsky characterized Stalin as a "centrist." And the Soviet Bureaucracy as an unstable and highly contradictory formation. History showed this to be correct. Stalin implemented collectivization and industrialization in his usual ham-fisted, panicked, reactive way. This was, in a very crude and partial way, the program of the LO. The critical difference between Stalin and the LO was on the issue of internationalism. Stalin was a nationalist. And the Comintern, which early on showed immense promise, under Zinoviev's and later Stalin's leadership, became a cesspool of petty factional intrigues -- and a tool used AGAINST international revolution. The LOers that went over to Stalin in 1928 and 1929 were deeply demoralized (for obvious reasons) and were looking for a way to surrender.

Trotsky writes that revolutions are "great devourers of men." And so they are. He saw many stalwart comrades become pillars of the bureaucracy. It says nothing about the method of the LO. Many who were at one time stalwart Marxists went further -- going over to the bourgeoisie (e.g., Plekhanov, Kautsky, Shachtman, etc.). People lose their way comrade. There is always pressure against revolutionaries.

Your devotion to abstract purity goes beyond the bounds of revolutionary principle. Events do not happen in a test tube. History is plenty messy. The Russian Revolution was ultimately decisively defeated as was the LO. It is immensely important to study and understand why that was.

I am not entirely sure the participation of members of the Left Opposition in the construction of the planned economy can be called a "surrender", or "going over to the bureaucracy". I make an exception for those that had become functionaries of the ComIntern, Radek and other "wanderers into the void", those that had supervised the execution of a confused and insufficiently internationalist policy. But those comrades that had worked in the banks, in the VSNKh, and so on, were they really retreating? Ham-fisted or not, the collectivisation and industrialisation that was actually happening was the best chance for the construction of a planned economy, something the LO had been advocating for years. In these circumstances, it seems rather reasonable of Preobrazhensky, Pyatakov and others to participate in the economic organs of the state.

And surely, if that collectivisation had failed, the LO would not have become any more popular? In fact, the next chance for something similar might not have come for decades.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Which is a pretty poor argument anyway even apart from the fact that it is factually incorrect.

The idea of state capitalism was first developed by Bukharin in 'Imperialism and World Economy' in 1915, as a stage of capitalist development, which is pretty much how most of the communist left sees it today. It was expanded upon as in how it was a danger in Russia in early 1918 by the left communists in the Russian party.

Kautsky first mentions it, without really developing the idea, in Terrorism and Communism, which was published in mid-1920. He merely uses it as a phrase, and doesn't really expand upon it.

If that were enough, we could trace the idea back to the older Liebkneckt, who used the term, but again didn't develop it, in an article in 1896.

Anyway, it is certainly no invention of Kautsky's. Rather it is a term that had become quite commonly used in the circles of left-wing politics by that time, and he picked up on it.

Devrim

The "state capitalism" that Bukharin and Lenin talked about is not exactly the same "state capitalism" that Cliff, Mao or, as I recall it, Kautsky, talked about. The former denotes a situation in which the state takes over the ownership of the means of production, but there does not yet exist complete workers' control, and participation in economic decision-making. The latter implies that there exists a "red" bourgeois class that owns the means of production de facto, and collectively.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

that is true. he dismissed the army before making peace with Central Powers. if Bolsheviks had not stopped him in time, USSR wouldnt have survived. he was willing to sacrifice the existence of USSR for his false "permanent revolution" theory.
This is such utter bullshit it defies the imagination. Trotsky, as was recognized by the Bolsheviks, did more than any single person to ensure the victory of the Red Army. NO ONE at the time denied this. It was the rewriting of history, of which Stalin was so fond, that most of the BS about Trotsky came about. That out of the ashes of tsarist armed forces Trotsky was able to meld an army that defeated its opponents during the period of 1918-20 was a minor miracle. Trotsky was the staunchest defender of the USSR -- and you are confusing the PR with the concept of revolutionary internationalism. They are not the same.

[Geiseric]

Yes Kautsky was in fact one of he first Leftists to denote the fSU as "state capitalist." Thus it was used for reactionry purposes, by him and Schachtman, who were both trying to act against either the fSU or the SWP. And I didn't say "you're a reactionary" for believing, I said it was a position used and coined by reactionaries. There is a big difference between the N.E.P. or the New Deal and the planned economy, the law of use value is supreme in a planned one, which is what happened. Such a capitalist country, with no unemployment or abject poverty! The fSU was in between capitalism and socialism, which I don't think can be argued against, seeing as capitalism wasn't restored untill the 90s.

[Devrim]

The "state capitalism" that Bukharin and Lenin talked about is not exactly the same "state capitalism" that Cliff, Mao or, as I recall it, Kautsky, talked about. The former denotes a situation in which the state takes over the ownership of the means of production, but there does not yet exist complete workers' control, and participation in economic decision-making. The latter implies that there exists a "red" bourgeois class that owns the means of production de facto, and collectively.

Which is part of the problem with the premise I was criticizing. You can't really damn all versions of state capitalist theory because Kautsky once used the term.

I don't think that you are right about how Bukharin used it. The way the idea was developed during the war was as an idea of a 'universal tendency towards state capitalism' as a general tendency within capital's development. In the period of the initial degeneration of the revolution he (and others) began to develop the idea of the post revolutionary state as being state capitalist, so there is a direct link between the two. Cliff's version is a less sophisticated version of this.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Which is part of the problem with the premise I was criticizing. You can't really damn all versions of state capitalist theory because Kautsky once used the term.

I don't think that you are right about how Bukharin used it. The way the idea was developed during the war was as an idea of a 'universal tendency towards state capitalism' as a general tendency within capital's development. In the period of the initial degeneration of the revolution he (and others) began to develop the idea of the post revolutionary state as being state capitalist, so there is a direct link between the two. Cliff's version is a less sophisticated version of this.

Devrim

You're talking about the N.E.P. which was state capitalism. That ended in 1929, when they started the planned economy.also bukharin later supported the Kulaks so there's one more reactionary who uses the state cap theory. The right opposition may of wanted genuine state capitalism but that conflicted with industrialization.

[Devrim]

Yes Kautsky was in fact one of he first Leftists to denote the fSU as "state capitalist." Thus it was used for reactionry purposes.

No, he wasn't. This is just factually untrue. The term was used by left wing opposition groups in the Russian party over two years before Kautsky used it.

Devrim

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Which is part of the problem with the premise I was criticizing. You can't really damn all versions of state capitalist theory because Kautsky once used the term.

I don't think that you are right about how Bukharin used it. The way the idea was developed during the war was as an idea of a 'universal tendency towards state capitalism' as a general tendency within capital's development. In the period of the initial degeneration of the revolution he (and others) began to develop the idea of the post revolutionary state as being state capitalist, so there is a direct link between the two. Cliff's version is a less sophisticated version of this.

Devrim
It's true, it is not a powerful argument against SCAP theory. It merely emphasizes what bad company you are keeping if you hold to it. The fact that anyone still considers Kautsky worth a crap after 1914 is astounding. His leadership was a catastrophe for the German and world proletariat. Now he was a counterrevolutionary.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Which is part of the problem with the premise I was criticizing. You can't really damn all versions of state capitalist theory because Kautsky once used the term.

"State capitalist theory" usually denotes the second variety, particularly when it is used to distinguish the followers of Cliff from other Trotskyists or anti-revisionists from other Marxists-Leninists. And it was never my intention to "damn" that theory by pointing out that Kautsky supported it, nor was it in all probability the intention of comrade Guthrie. But the question of what made the theory so attractive to Kautsky - and to Shachtman etc. etc., needs to be addressed.


I don't think that you are right about how Bukharin used it. The way the idea was developed during the war was as an idea of a 'universal tendency towards state capitalism' as a general tendency within capital's development. In the period of the initial degeneration of the revolution he (and others) began to develop the idea of the post revolutionary state as being state capitalist, so there is a direct link between the two. Cliff's version is a less sophisticated version of this.

"The economic literature of Western Europe conceives state capitalism as the higher form of capitalism in the hands of a bourgeois government; as the most complete and powerful organization conceivable of the capitalistic classes.

Naturally our state capitalism is diametrically opposite to this. But naturally, too, the kind of state capitalism we have in Russia can easily be converted into the kind of state capitalism conceived under a bourgeois government in case the laboring classes lose power in Russia. We are confident, however, that this will not occur." - Bukharin, Economic Organisation in Soviet Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm)

Actually, Bukharin seems to have used the term in both ways, but I am not really familiar with his work during his Left Communist period, which is why I classed him as more similar to Lenin than to Cliff on that issue.

[Rurkel]

and to Shachtman etc. etc., needs to be addressed.
Wasn't Shachtman a "SU is bureaucratic collectivism" kind of guy?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wasn't Shachtman a "SU is bureaucratic collectivism" kind of guy?

He was, but the differences are subtle, and for the purposes of this thread, the theories of "bureaucratic collectivism" and "state capitalism" might as well be the same thing - both deny that the Soviet Union was a workers' state, and both posit some "new class", and so on.

Even excluding Shachtman, the social-democratic deviation is prominent among those that accept the "state capitalist" account, from Dunayevska, who broke with Trotsky over support for the Soviet Union and in her subsequent work, while being incredibly progressive for her time about several social issues, lost the thread and ended up supporting some sort of Hegelian humanism, to James openly attacking the concept of a vanguard party.

[ILikeRevolution]

Is it not true that in Lenin's testament he recommends removing Stalin as general-secretary? And in the same testament (among criticisms of all Bolsheviks including Trotsky) Lenin calls Trotsky "perhaps the most capable man in the present central committee" and says that he has "outstanding ability"? Lenin goes on: "I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky," saying there's no friggin way anyone can consider Trotsky a non-Bolshevik. And is it true Stalin tried to repress the publication and spread of that testament?

And didn't Lenin recommended Trotsky become head of the Soviet government immediately after the October Revolution?

I demand answers, anti-Trotskyists. Especially if you claim to be continuing Lenin's legacy.

[Thirsty Crow]

It tells us that they were consistent.
Were they consistent in their opposition to the bureaucracy? It's clear that what they've been consistent in was their disastrous errors of judgement.


All of them characterised the Soviet Union as a dictatorship of the proletariat, albeit a degenerated one, and advocated collectivisation and central planning. So when the Soviet government started the collectivisation campaign and moved toward central planning in all branches of industry, what were they supposed to so?Oppose the ruling bureaucracy, perhaps? Since the real basis for the opposition wasn't only the existence of kulaks, but also the fate of the working class, both in its aspect of political emaciation and day to day oppression?


Politely decline to contribute their expertise to the process because, hm, they really didn't like Stalin?"Really didn't like Stalin". Is this what Trotskyist opposition comes down to? We don't like old Joe, but once we get hints that we can cosy ourselves with this clique, hell yeah.

To be clear, I'm not passing a moral judgement. I'm just pointing out that right from the very start, almost the entire edifice of the views held by the Opposition was rotten and couldn't serve as a basis for a revolutionary criticism and practice.


I did not mean to imply that. Yeah, but you did in fact.


But overestimating the strength of the revoluionary forces, while a serious mistake that no one should make excuses for, is not counterrevolutionary, unless you think that Trotsky obstructed the Brest-Litovsk negotiations purposefully, in order to undermine the Soviet government.I have no idea what you're rambling about here. I'm not talking about Brest-Litovsk here. I'm talking about a more general problem, that of the implicit assessment of a political figure by reference to motives.



Your devotion to abstract purity goes beyond the bounds of revolutionary principle. Events do not happen in a test tube. History is plenty messy. The Russian Revolution was ultimately decisively defeated as was the LO. It is immensely important to study and understand why that was.
What devotion to abstract purity? What are you talking about here? Does the fact that history is a bit messy to say the least mean that errors in judgement which lead to an inability to act turn into their opposite or something?

To be clear, I certainly don't insist on abstract purity of whatever. I claim that right from he very start the method used was faulty (the abstract opposition of planning and the market, the disastrous use of class analysis in assessing the bureaucracy, the lack of recognition that the party has become a body of counter-revolution, the theoretical schism between the notion of the immediate workers' interests and their hsitorical ones ostensibly embodied in the Party - manifest in Trotsky's attitude to strikes in the early 20s for instance - and so on).

To be clear, these errors didn't fall from the sky. But to deny them and try to paint them as consistency (consistency in error) is to fail to understand what actually happened.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Were they consistent in their opposition to the bureaucracy? It's clear that what they've been consistent in was their disastrous errors of judgement.

Oppose the ruling bureaucracy, perhaps? Since the real basis for the opposition wasn't only the existence of kulaks, but also the fate of the working class, both in its aspect of political emaciation and day to day oppression?

"Really didn't like Stalin". Is this what Trotskyist opposition comes down to? We don't like old Joe, but once we get hints that we can cosy ourselves with this clique, hell yeah.

To be clear, I'm not passing a moral judgement. I'm just pointing out that right from the very start, almost the entire edifice of the views held by the Opposition was rotten and couldn't serve as a basis for a revolutionary criticism and practice.

Yeah, but you did in fact.

I have no idea what you're rambling about here. I'm not talking about Brest-Litovsk here. I'm talking about a more general problem, that of the implicit assessment of a political figure by reference to motives.


What devotion to abstract purity? What are you talking about here? Does the fact that history is a bit messy to say the least mean that errors in judgement which lead to an inability to act turn into their opposite or something?

To be clear, I certainly don't insist on abstract purity of whatever. I claim that right from he very start the method used was faulty (the abstract opposition of planning and the market, the disastrous use of class analysis in assessing the bureaucracy, the lack of recognition that the party has become a body of counter-revolution, the theoretical schism between the notion of the immediate workers' interests and their hsitorical ones ostensibly embodied in the Party - manifest in Trotsky's attitude to strikes in the early 20s for instance - and so on).

To be clear, these errors didn't fall from the sky. But to deny them and try to paint them as consistency (consistency in error) is to fail to understand what actually happened.
I am not sure what you mean about the disastrous use of class analysis. What you describe as a schism, I would describe as a contradiction.

Trotsky's attitude toward strikes during the period of War Communism was completely tied up to the issue of fighting the civil war -- perhaps you could provide some specifics, comrade? Again, I think that you criticize Trotsky's harsh attitude toward striking workers in circumstances that strikes could have rapidly destroyed the USSR. This is not dissimilar from the comrades that complain about the reinstating hierarchy and discipline in the armed forces. Not ideally how you want to do things, but the conditions were far from ideal. Trotsky's understanding of the bureaucracy as a contradictory and ephemeral phenomenon has been borne out by history. It should also be clear that the actual counterrevolution happened in the 1990s. The complete collapse of the standard of living of the population (including a TEN YEAR drop in life expectancy) was unprecedented. The imperialists can certainly tell the difference.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Were they consistent in their opposition to the bureaucracy?

Correct. After all, the Left Opposition had always been an internal opposition within the Party, and within the Soviet system. Members of the Left Opposition called for democratic reform, not for the destruction of the dictatorship of the proletariat like Miasnikov's group. And they have always welcomed the possibility of working through the Soviet system, which is why members of the Left Opposition retained their Party and state posts before being expelled.


It's clear that what they've been consistent in was their disastrous errors of judgement.

What error? That a planned economy was possible in the Soviet Union? Or that a planned economy was the fastest route to economic progress? Both positions seem to have been confirmed by the period of collectivisation and the first Five-Year Plans.


Oppose the ruling bureaucracy, perhaps? Since the real basis for the opposition wasn't only the existence of kulaks, but also the fate of the working class, both in its aspect of political emaciation and day to day oppression?

An intransigent opposition to the bureaucracy as it was starting the construction of the planned economy would have helped no one, least of all the scattered and demoralised Left Opposition, or the proletariat that would have been decimated by the continuation of market anarchy.

Former members of the Left Opposition, with the exception of Radek and Joffe, worked in economic bodies in any case; their work impacted the average Soviet worker more than it impacted Rykov or Stalin.


"Really didn't like Stalin". Is this what Trotskyist opposition comes down to? We don't like old Joe, but once we get hints that we can cosy ourselves with this clique, hell yeah.

It was a joke, comrade. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that those members of the LO that thought collectivisation could succeed had no real reasons not to participate, except personal animus or ultrasectarianism.


To be clear, I'm not passing a moral judgement. I'm just pointing out that right from the very start, almost the entire edifice of the views held by the Opposition was rotten and couldn't serve as a basis for a revolutionary criticism and practice.

It could not have served as an excuse for the overthrow of the proletarian dictatorship, albeit degenerated, nor could it have served as an excuse for obstructionism. Both the Marxist-Leninists, who think Trotskyism entails sabotage, and some of the Left Communist, who think anything but the most perfect and the most immediate proletarian democracy should be overthrown, fail to appreciate that.


Yeah, but you did in fact.

I have no idea what you're rambling about here. I'm not talking about Brest-Litovsk here. I'm talking about a more general problem, that of the implicit assessment of a political figure by reference to motives.

I am "rambling about" my response to hashem's claim that Trotsky was a counterrevolutionary for his position at the Brest-Litovsk talks, how I misspoke, and what I had meant to say.

[ind_com]

Is it not true that in Lenin's testament he recommends removing Stalin as general-secretary? And in the same testament (among criticisms of all Bolsheviks including Trotsky) Lenin calls Trotsky "perhaps the most capable man in the present central committee" and says that he has "outstanding ability"? Lenin goes on: "I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky," saying there's no friggin way anyone can consider Trotsky a non-Bolshevik. And is it true Stalin tried to repress the publication and spread of that testament?

And didn't Lenin recommended Trotsky become head of the Soviet government immediately after the October Revolution?

I demand answers, anti-Trotskyists. Especially if you claim to be continuing Lenin's legacy.

First of all, in a communist party, the individual is subordinated to the organization. We do not think that any of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky were demigods so that they would always have to be right. Secondly, as far as I recall, Stalin once wanted to give up his position of GS voluntarily. But everyone else, including Trotsky, insisted on him retaining his post. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this point.

EDIT: And yes, despite of his petty-bourgeois adventurism and dictatorial attitude, Trotsky was very much a Bolshevik in the years of revolution and intense civil war. He took to illogical opposition only in the years after Lenin's death, and refusing to learn from the growing unpopularity of his line among the proletariat, gradually degenerated into a full-fledged counter-revolutionary.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First of all, in a communist party, the individual is subordinated to the organization. We do not think that any of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky were demigods so that they would always have to be right. Secondly, as far as I recall, Stalin once wanted to give up his position of GS voluntarily. But everyone else, including Trotsky, insisted on him retaining his post. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this point.

I think that is basically correct; Stalin had offered his resignation but the Central Committee refused it.

As for "the Testament" itself, it was an outline of measures Lenin thought were necessary to improve the composition of the Central Committee, and it is basically sarcastic regarding most prominent members of the CC. But it would be a gross violation of the collective principle for the Central Committee to take orders from any person, even if that person is Lenin, and "the Testament" was not meant as an order in any case. Trotsky, as far as I am aware, never brought it up; certain American sympathisers of Trotsky broke Party rules and mentioned it, and then Kamenev made references to it during the United Opposition, but not Trotsky.

And in any case, as far as I am aware, the "Testament" recommended the removal of Stalin due to his abrasive personality, not ideological defects per se. Not that removing Stalin would accomplish much, as far as Trotskyists are concerned; the bureaucratic deformation would have remained, even though it might have been colloquially termed Kamenevism or Molotovism or Kirovism or whatnot.

"The Testament" is just a note intended to spark a discussion; I think the more important ideological documents from the last phase of Lenin's life are those connected to the RabKrIn etc. etc.

[Red Enemy]

Democracy in the army is a pretty great thing and it sounds very nice.

Unless you want to win a war, that is.
Surely, you can provide an actual explanation.

[Geiseric]

First of all, in a communist party, the individual is subordinated to the organization. We do not think that any of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky were demigods so that they would always have to be right. Secondly, as far as I recall, Stalin once wanted to give up his position of GS voluntarily. But everyone else, including Trotsky, insisted on him retaining his post. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this point.

EDIT: And yes, despite of his petty-bourgeois adventurism and dictatorial attitude, Trotsky was very much a Bolshevik in the years of revolution and intense civil war. He took to illogical opposition only in the years after Lenin's death, and refusing to learn from the growing unpopularity of his line among the proletariat, gradually degenerated into a full-fledged counter-revolutionary.

Stalin wasn't removed because he kamenev and zinoviev made lenin's testiment not go public. In other words they hid it and threatened Lenin's wife. That is why he wast removed after the Georgian affair. Later on he pulled a Crassus when he offered to abdicate, after he attained enough support from within to assure that wouldn't happen.

[marxleninstalinmao]

I always prefer to reply to the original post of a thread (and then any replies to my reply), especially on revleft, where the stress from reading the idiocy that usually follows might give me angina.

Anyway, the reason Trotsky was described as such was that he was exactly that- a Menshevik who pretended to come over to the Bolshevik party and continued to stand for factionalism and anti-socialism when he did so; the evidence for that is history itself.

He was an opportunist because he perpetually wormed his way into the cracks of every instance of discord within the CPSU and held a nonsensical third position, something that his followers still do today (i.e. "Neither washington nor moscow"). For an example of the former, take Trotsky's definition of a nation and compare it with Stalin's competing, objective, Marxist-Leninist, definition.

He was counter-revolutionary because essentially he led a band of wreckers who, in their constant attempts to defeat socialism in the USSR, did deals with the Nazi's and consistantly tried to wreck every example of socialist manufacturing in the interests of private enterprise.


I hear a lot from anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists that Trotsky was an "opportunist," "counter-revolutionary," and even that he was opposed to the USSR's existence -- but that's all I hear, just strong criticisms but little evidence.

I'm guessing most of us know that Trotsky was critical of Stalin's era, but from the work of Trotsky I've read thus far, he supported the existence of the USSR and even praised certain characteristics of it under Stalin. Do any anti-Trotskyism tendencies mind filling me in on why they think Trotsky was anti-Leninism, counter-revolutionary, opportunist, etc..?

[marxleninstalinmao]

No, that is not true, you are mindlessly repeating propaganda. Lenin was constantly at Trotsky's throat (metaphorically of course) over the latter's factionalism; what makes you think he would suddenly suggest him to lead the party over a staunch Leninist like Joseph Stalin?


Is it not true that in Lenin's testament he recommends removing Stalin as general-secretary? And in the same testament (among criticisms of all Bolsheviks including Trotsky) Lenin calls Trotsky "perhaps the most capable man in the present central committee" and says that he has "outstanding ability"? Lenin goes on: "I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky," saying there's no friggin way anyone can consider Trotsky a non-Bolshevik. And is it true Stalin tried to repress the publication and spread of that testament?

And didn't Lenin recommended Trotsky become head of the Soviet government immediately after the October Revolution?

I demand answers, anti-Trotskyists. Especially if you claim to be continuing Lenin's legacy.

[Questionable]

yo cheque out these quotes:

And then Stalin offered to resign but the delegates chose for him to keep his post, including Trotsky.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Oh, so Stalin, in a clever manouever, offered to resign. The PB including Trotsky gave him another chance. THAT WAS A MISTAKE. Of course Zinoviev and Kamenev were already aligned against Trotsky, whom they feared. Everyone underestimated Stalin. He was the least well-known by the general populace. He was not a good speaker or writer. He was far more provincial than the most of the leading Bolsheviks. He played almost no positive role during the Revolution. He was a pathetic army commander, costing the USSR dearly in his vainglorious attempt to capture Lvov during the war with Poland.

Lenin understood who Stalin was before anyone else did and suggested he be removed from the position of Secretary of the Party. Lenin was preparing a bloc with Trotsky against Stalin before his last stroke completely disabled him. He broke off personal relations with Stalin after he dictated his "last will and testament."

The funny thing is, Stalinists will quote obscure passages that Lenin wrote about Trotsky during periods where they were having political disagreements (always before the revolution). Disagreements that were fully resolved in 1917, btw. However, here is a document written by Lenin in 1923 -- with a very clear intent and these same folks dismiss it. You can't have it both ways, comrades. You can't elevate some little tidbit taken out of context, written in 1912 by Lenin about Trotsky as something important and then dismiss a sweeping condemnation made in judgment about Stalin to be communicated to the Central Committee. It's ludicrous.

[Questionable]

Oh, so Stalin, in a clever manouever, offered to resign.

Yep, it was all just a big conspiracy theory. What is it with you Trots and your crazy stories about Stalin being a master manipulator? Every time the man did something he had an ulterior motive. You have zero evidence to back this up.


Of course Zinoviev and Kamenev were already aligned against Trotsky, whom they feared. Everyone underestimated Stalin. He was the least well-known by the general populace. He was not a good speaker or writer. He was far more provincial than the most of the leading Bolsheviks. He played almost no positive role during the Revolution. He was a pathetic army commander, costing the USSR dearly in his vainglorious attempt to capture Lvov during the war with Poland.

And of course Trotsky's role in the Red Army meant he could never be wrong about anything ever.


Lenin understood who Stalin was before anyone else did and suggested he be removed from the position of Secretary of the Party. Lenin was preparing a bloc with Trotsky against Stalin before his last stroke completely disabled him. He broke off personal relations with Stalin after he dictated his "last will and testament."

Then it's pretty weird that Lenin had nothing but positive things to say about Stalin until his death bed.



The funny thing is, Stalinists will quote obscure passages that Lenin wrote about Trotsky during periods where they were having political disagreements (always before the revolution). Disagreements that were fully resolved in 1917, btw. However, here is a document written by Lenin in 1923 -- with a very clear intent and these same folks dismiss it. You can't have it both ways, comrades. You can't elevate some little tidbit taken out of context, written in 1912 by Lenin about Trotsky as something important and then dismiss a sweeping condemnation made in judgment about Stalin to be communicated to the Central Committee. It's ludicrous.

No, the funny thing is that Trots bring up Lenin's supposed "last will" repeatedly to prove that Lenin knew about Stalin all along, regardless of that when Max Eastman published the story about Lenin's will Trotsky denounced it because following a "will" would have been an alien practice to the Party. Here are the man's own words:


‘In several parts of his book Eastman says that the Central Committee concealed’ from the Party a number of exceptionally important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life (it is a matter of letters on the national question, the so-called ‘will’, and others); there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party. From what Eastman says it may be inferred that Vladimir Ilyich intended those letters, which bore the character of advice on internal organisation, for the press. In point of fact, that is absolutely untrue. It goes without saying that all those letters and proposals... were brought to the knowledge of the delegates at the 12th and 13th Congresses, and always, of course, exercised due influence upon the Party’s decisions; and if not all of those letters were published, it was because the author did not intend them for the press. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any ‘will’, and the very character of his attitude towards the Party, as well as the character of the Party itself, precluded any possibility of such a ‘will’. What is usually referred to as a ‘will’ in the émigré and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich’s letters containing advice on organisational matters. The 13th Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter, as to all of the others, and drew from it the conclusions appropriate to the conditions and circumstances of the time. All talk about concealing or violating a ‘will’ is a malicious invention’.

[Geiseric]

Regardless nothing can hide the fact that Stalin and Kamenev (acting like thugs) hid the will by threatening Lenin's wife. It might of been unprofessional to go right away and kick out Stalin but he would of been castrated (figuratively) at least if the will went public.

Besides the fact that Stalin lied about being super close with Lenin while he was in charge, for about 20 years.

[ind_com]

Stalin wasn't removed because he kamenev and zinoviev made lenin's testiment not go public. In other words they hid it and threatened Lenin's wife.

That's a soap-opera story. Bolshevik's operated through democratic centralism, not such dramas or according to the will of some supreme leader. Everywhere from defending counter-revolutionaries to explaining inner party politics, Trotsky used this kind of illogical and dramatic arguments.

[Questionable]

That's a soap-opera story. Bolshevik's operated through democratic centralism, not such dramas or according to the will of some supreme leader. Everywhere from defending counter-revolutionaries to explaining inner party politics, Trotsky used this kind of illogical and dramatic arguments.

In the part I quoted it's clear that even Trotsky himself saw the lunacy in using a testament as a way to operate the Party, so it's kind of funny that Trots cling to it as a way to prove their legitimacy.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

In the part I quoted it's clear that even Trotsky himself saw the lunacy in using a testament as a way to operate the Party, so it's kind of funny that Trots cling to it as a way to prove their legitimacy.
Do you even read the quote you use? It says it was for use by the Party. And Trotsky was following party discipline by chastising the publishing of this document. Unlike the Triumvirs he adhered to party discipline - at an exceptionally high cost to himself. Stalin and his heirs are the great falsifiers of history. And also the ones that operated on a personalist basis, btw. Trotsky, in his loyalty to the party and to international proletarian revolution kept on trying to work to shift the party policy. The Testament is very damning, comrade. If it wasn't, it would not have been hidden.

If Lenin had said damning things about Trotsky in the "will" The Triumvirs would have published on the first page of Pravda the day they first had it. The history books had to be rewritten and discarded many times during Stalin's rule because the history kept on changing. At first Trotsky was one of the top leaders of the October Revolution -- later he was a non-entity who interfered with the Bolsheviks. Stalin, actually was not a significant figure in the period between February and October in 1917. However, the history books were repeatedly rewritten with Stalin having an ever greater role. Stalin's story changed so many times it was hard to keep up with. Trotsky's and the LO were consistent and what they said was verifiable. They hewed to a revolutionary socialist program long after the PB/CPSU had abandoned it.

They were right about China, Germany, and Spain. The were also right about collectivization -- which Stalin was compelled to carry out, in his own reactive, panicky and highly destructive way. Stalin was a master manipulator -- but that is only one reason he prevailed. He also represented the despairing, conservative leaning sections of the country that wanted stability, not an ongoing fight for world revolution. That was his greatest strength. If the German revolution had succeeded in 1919, few people would know Stalin's name.

[Questionable]

Do you even read the quote you use? It says it was for use by the Party.Uh...yeah, I did. That's why I said "...Trotsky himself saw the lunacy in using a testament as a way to operate the Party." You've contradicted nothing I've said.


Trotsky, in his loyalty to the party and to international proletarian revolution kept on trying to work to shift the party policy.Yeah, and when Stalin followed Party protocol it was all a conspiracy to make himself look trustworthy so he could stab everyone in the back and grab more power. Lame.


The Testament is very damning, comrade. If it wasn't, it would not have been hidden.I don't blame them for hiding it. Every opponent of the USSR at the time - imperialist, fascist, Trotskyite, and more - would have loved to grant themselves legitimacy by using that letter to "prove" that Stalin deserved to be thrown out. Regardless, it does not negate the fact that Lenin and Stalin maintained close relations throughout their whole lives, sometimes without days going by where they did not communicate. Lenin also saved Stalin from being removed from positions in the Party many times himself.


If Lenin had said damning things about Trotsky in the "will" The Triumvirs would have published on the first page of Pravda the day they first had it.Do you have any proof for this? This entire paragraph is basically "IF TROTSKY HAD BEEN IN CHARGE THINGS SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, YEP"


Stalin, actually was not a significant figure in the period between February and October in 1917.Bullshit. Stalin was a very active member of the Party.


"On November 29, 1917, the Central Committee of the party had appointed a chetvërtka, or foursome, comprising Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Sverdlov, to exercise power in all emergency matters. According to Trotsky, this inner council became a troika, or threesome, because Sverdlov was too deeply involved in the work of the party secretariat to be available. Membership of this inner council and of Sovnarkom was for Stalin all the more demanding, because of Lenin's reliance on him. 'Lenin could not get along without Stalin for a single day,' Pestkovsky wrote. 'Probably for that reason our office in the Smolny was under the wing of Lenin. In the course of the day he would call Stalin out an endless number of times, or would appear in our office and lead him away. Most of the day Stalin spent with Lenin.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 105.)

It's funny that Trots use the exact same things they criticize Stalin for to venerate Trotsky. They never stop talking about how honorable, heroic, and talented Leon Trotsky was, but when anyone breathes a word about Stalin's qualities and achievements, we get shouted down with accusations of "Great Man Theory!" and "Cult of personality!"

[Geiseric]

That's a soap-opera story. Bolshevik's operated through democratic centralism, not such dramas or according to the will of some supreme leader. Everywhere from defending counter-revolutionaries to explaining inner party politics, Trotsky used this kind of illogical and dramatic arguments.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. How would you like it if I threatened your mom\wife with violence if she released your will?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Uh...yeah, I did. That's why I said "...Trotsky himself saw the lunacy in using a testament as a way to operate the Party." You've contradicted nothing I've said.
You don't think Lenin recommending the removal of Stalin because he was rude and disloyal was of any import?


Yeah, and when Stalin followed Party protocol it was all a conspiracy to make himself look trustworthy so he could stab everyone in the back and grab more power. Lame.
Talk about lame. Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev did form a faction to fight Trotsky as early as 1922. They feared him -- this was a major breach of party rules, by the way. Stalin did not stab people in the back -- he stabbed them in the heart and then pissed on their corpses, then killed their friends and families. But all of that came later. He had to kill a whole lot of people before his freedom to operate got to that point. Stalin used the position of Party Secretary to appoint supporters to all manner of responsible party positions -- what mattered was not your competence or revolutionary integrity, but your loyalty to Stalin. This is what happened comrade. Trotsky's popularity in the party and among the masses greatly slowed down Stalin's campaign to destroy Trotsky, but not enough. And Stalin could not have done it without the support of Zinoviev and Kamenev.


I don't blame them for hiding it. Every opponent of the USSR at the time - imperialist, fascist, Trotskyite, and more - would have loved to grant themselves legitimacy by using that letter to "prove" that Stalin deserved to be thrown out. Regardless, it does not negate the fact that Lenin and Stalin maintained close relations throughout their whole lives, sometimes without days going by where they did not communicate. Lenin also saved Stalin from being removed from positions in the Party many times himself.
But Lenin, LENIN, did call for his removal and called him "rude and disloyal."
If that is so, Lenin lived, just barely, to regret it. And Trotsky was not an opponent of the USSR, he defended it, staunchly -- until he was murdered by Stalin's agent (duh, another silly conspiracy theory, no doubt).


Do you have any proof for this? This entire paragraph is basically "IF TROTSKY HAD BEEN IN CHARGE THINGS SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, YEP"
Sorry comrade, I don't have newspaper clippings from a hypothetical reality. Gotta use reasoning on this one. I understand if that is too hard for you.


Bullshit. Stalin was a very active member of the Party.
So were about 40,000 others. No contemporary accounts of the Revolution mention a big role for Stalin. And no party history did either until after he started to consolidate power. Yeah, he was doing party work. So were lots of others whose names you don't know. He also was ready to have the Bolsheviks support the Provisional Government led by Kadets and unite with the Mensheviks before Lenin came back and kicked everyone's ass.


It's funny that Trots use the exact same things they criticize Stalin for to venerate Trotsky. They never stop talking about how honorable, heroic, and talented Leon Trotsky was, but when anyone breathes a word about Stalin's qualities and achievements, we get shouted down with accusations of "Great Man Theory!" and "Cult of personality!"You know what's funnier? The date of the quote is after the revolution!

Comrade to say that Lenin or Trotsky were critical leaders without which the Revolution might not have happened is a matter of record. No honest person familiar with the facts would deny this. That Stalin was a key leader of the revolution is part of his cult of personality because it is a lie, and no more true than Kim Jong-il's ability to shoot an 18 hole golf round of 18.

Trotskyists revere Trotsky for his continued fight for revolutionary program, the rest is interesting, perhaps but not so important. You can't really do that with Stalin because his program, based on opportunism and nationalism, was changing all the time. And before you chime in to praise his "dialectical flexibility" let's remind you that he called for polar opposite lines on things in very sudden panicked shifts (e.g., collectivization, industrialization, NEP, SIOC, "social fascism," "approach to fighting fascists, etc.). When he declared for Socialism in One Country, in 1924, he claimed this was a continuation of Lenin's program because he could find two quotes out of context to bolster this idiotic assertion that is disproven by endless quotes from Lenin and even from Stalin. He did not declare that this was a new orientation made necessary by world conditions -- he said it was a continuation of Leninist policy. It can be very uncomfortable since Stalin and his fellow epigones were not able to find and destroy all the previously published materials giving lie to their claims.

The power of Stalin came from his being the leader that represented the spent elements of the revolution my point was that under other circumstances Stalin would have probably minded his manners and remained a useful comrade to the party and revolution.

[Questionable]

Uh, I meant the quote from Trotsky, nimrod.What the fuck are you talking about? You said that the quote said the will was for use by the Party. Nothing I said ever contradicted that. Stop making yourself look foolish.


Talk about lame.Talk about lame, indeed. The rest of your paragraph is nothing more than more masturbation about how the dastardly Stalin feared the heavenly benevolence of Trotsky. Your depiction of the man is nothing less than Christ-like.


But Lenin, LENIN, did call for his removal and called him "rude and disloyal."Yeah, after Stalin yelled at his wife on the phone and pissed him off. But I'm sure there's no correlation between those events, and it was actually Lenin realizing that he'd fucked up.


Sorry comrade, I don't have newspaper clippings from a hypothetical reality. Gotta use reasoning on this one. I understand if that is too hard for you.I literally had to laugh out loud when you said this.

He writes long alternate historical novels about how Trotsky would have single-handedly saved the USSR from evil Stalinism, then when I point out that he has none, ZERO evidence to support him other than his own little fantasies, he calls me the idiot. This shit isn't even worth my time. The only reason that Trotskyites have to write alternate historical fiction to legitimize Trotsky is because the actual, real evidence is against them.


So were about 40,000 others. No contemporary accounts of the Revolution mention a big role for Stalin. And no party history did either until after he started to consolidate power. Yeah, he was doing party work. So were lots of others whose names you don't know. He also was ready to have the Bolsheviks support the Provisional Government led by Kadets and unite with the Mensheviks before Lenin came back and kicked everyone's ass.Umm, Trotsky was the ex-Menshevik. Whatever erroneous stances Stalin may have held in the early days were obviously mended due to his close relationship with Lenin and the former's dependence on him when operating Party affairs.

This whole thing is seriously the biggest use of double standards I've ever seen. Lev won't stop talking about how heroic and amazing Trotsky, but when it's pointed out that Stalin contributed to the Party, he says "YEAH BUT SO DID OTHER PEOPLE LOL" Which is the exact thing that Stalin said when Trots kept talking about how heroic Trotsky was during the Russian Revolution.There's no reasoning with this man. He uses evidence in an illogical and opportunist manner, and forgives Trotsky's errors while elevating Stalin's to nonsensical proportions. Any time Stalin made an error, it is irrevocable proof that he was a terrible communist. Any time he did something good, he was secretly scheming to overthrow Trotsky and destroy the USSR.


You know what's funnier? The date of the quote is after the revolution!So are you trying to say that it was fabricated? That's quite delicious, because it's only further proof that, in the absence of any real evidence, Trotskyites have to create fictional accounts of history that are unfalsifiable in order to justify themselves. What's even more interesting is that there are many who claim that Lenin's will itself was falsified by opponents of Stalin, so I guess two can play at that game: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm



Comrade to say that Lenin or Trotsky were critical leaders without which the Revolution might not have happened is a matter of record. No honest person familiar with the facts would deny this. That Stalin was a key leader of the revolution is part of his cult of personality because it is a lie, and no more true than Kim Jong-il's ability to shoot an 18 hole golf round of 18.Except you're not simply stating the facts, you're glorifying Trotsky's role to messianic proportions, creating alternate history stories ("Trotsky would have done this while Stalin would have done this, if only we had won!"), and downplaying everything that Stalin did. You are far from objective in this discussion.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

What the fuck are you talking about? You said that the quote said the will was for use by the Party. Nothing I said ever contradicted that. Stop making yourself look foolish.

No, but you use Trotsky's quote to dismiss the content of the will -- I will let others judge who seems foolish on that.


Talk about lame, indeed. The rest of your paragraph is nothing more than more masturbation about how the dastardly Stalin feared the heavenly benevolence of Trotsky. Your depiction of the man is nothing less than Christ-like.

WTF are you talking about? Stalin was a nasty piece of slime, but that is entirely beside the point. Stalin's program was nationalism, conciliating the middle and rich peasant's. Let's keep it about program - it is too complex for you to get the dialectic regarding how humans interact within the historical confines they inhabit.


Yeah, after Stalin yelled at his wife on the phone and pissed him off. But I'm sure there's no correlation between those events, and it was actually Lenin realizing that he'd fucked up. --


Ah your time line is wrong again. Lenin wrote his Last will before he broke off personal relations with Stalin -- the personal break was based on Stalin harassing and abusing Krupskaya. Lenin didn't call for the removal of someone from an important party post just because he was pissed, ever. Seems you can't help but reduce it to the personal, comrade


I literally had to laugh out loud when you said this.

[QUOTE]He writes long alternate historical novels about how Trotsky would have single-handedly saved the USSR from evil Stalinism, then when I point out that he has none, ZERO evidence to support him other than his own little fantasies, he calls me the idiot. This shit isn't even worth my time. The only reason that Trotskyites have to write alternate historical fiction to legitimize Trotsky is because the actual, real evidence is against them.


We can discuss party history another time, comrade. I don't have time right now I will get back to you on Trotsky's Menshevism.


This whole thing is seriously the biggest use of double standards I've ever seen. Lev won't stop talking about how heroic and amazing Trotsky, but when it's pointed out that Stalin contributed to the Party, he says "YEAH BUT SO DID OTHER PEOPLE LOL" Which is the exact thing that Stalin said when Trots kept talking about how heroic Trotsky was during the Russian Revolution.There's no reasoning with this man. He uses evidence in an illogical and opportunist manner, and forgives Trotsky's errors while elevating Stalin's to nonsensical proportions. Any time Stalin made an error, it is irrevocable proof that he was a terrible communist. Any time he did something good, he was secretly scheming to overthrow Trotsky and destroy the USSR.

Trotsky's greatest political error was underestimating the danger of the Triumvirate and Stalin. He made others, of course. But a scoresheet of who was right more often is beside the point. What was their program?

No, I am saying that Stalin's role was minimal compared to Trotsky's -- which is not an indictment, unless you read the mendacious lies printed later that Stalin was key in leading the October Revolution and Trotsky actually played a negative role.

Stalin's "mistakes" were colassal betrayals of world revolution and included the destruction of the CI and the CPSU as revolutionary forces. I would say that pretending to the world that SOIC was Marxist and a continuation of Leninism was more than a little ooopsie. Poor Stalin, he murdered a generation of revolutionaries to cling to power. Ooops. Everyone makes mistakes
Talk about particulars comrade. You speak in the vaguest generalities. Do you want to talk about program? About NEP, SOIC, the Purge Trials, China, Spain? Let's talk comrade and you can defend the indefensible. But only with more lies and insinuations. You make an excellent Stalinist.

[Questionable]

I'm not interested in another long-winded Stalin vs. Trotsky debate, especially when most of the crap being brought up like Spain and the Purge Trials have already been debunked by much better Marxist-Leninists than I. Lev here is singing an old tune and I'm not particularly interested in it. So I'll keep this post brief as there's only really one portion that isn't just more repetition of the Trotskyite interpretation of history that everyone is already sick of hearing.


Ah your time line is wrong again. Lenin wrote his Last will before he broke off personal relations with Stalin -- the personal break was based on Stalin harassing and abusing Krupskaya. Lenin didn't call for the removal of someone from an important party post just because he was pissed, ever. Seems you can't help but reduce it to the personal, comrade

For anyone interested in this subject, Lenin pretty much praised Stalin and criticized Trotsky up until around 1922, when things started to get a little fishy. I'm glad that you brought up the "harassment and abuse" of Lenin's wife because Stalin offered to apologize for that as well (Which I guess was another act of subterfuge so he could infiltrate the Party):


LENIN’S ILLNESS
Lenin fell seriously ill in 1921:
‘Lenin fell seriously ill towards the end of 1921 and was forced to rest for several weeks’.89
On 23 April 1922 Lenin underwent surgery to remove one of the bullets fired at him in an assassination attempt by the Socialist Revolutionary Fanya Kaplan on 30 August 1918.90
Then, on 26 May 1922,
‘Catastrophe struck: his right hand and leg became paralysed and his speech was impaired, sometimes completely so... his convalescence was slow and tedious... He never fully regained his health. The return to public life was not to last long’.91
And on 16 December, Lenin suffered: ‘Two dangerous strokes’.92
And furthermore:
‘On December 23 he... suffered another attack of his illness... He realised next morning that once again a part of his body, his right hand and leg, was paralysed’.93
On 10 March 1923:
‘A new stroke paralyses half of Lenin’s body and deprives him of his capacity to speak. Lenin’s political activity is finished’.94
Lenin died on 21 January 1924. The doctors who performed the autopsy on Lenin on 22 January found that
‘The basic disease of the deceased was disseminated vascular arteriosclerosis based on premature wearing out of the vessels. The narrowing of the lumen of the cerebral arteries and the disturbances of the cerebral blood supply brought about focal softening of the brain tissue which can account for all symptoms of the disease (paralysis, disturbance of speech)’.95
The controversial document known as ‘Lenin’s Testament’ was dictatedbetween 23 and 31 December 1922, with a supplement dated 4 January 1923, after Lenin had already suffered four severe strokes which had adversely affected his brain function. Thus Lenin’s radical changes of opinion on Stalin, on Trotsky and on Transcaucasia are partly explicable by psycho-pathologica1 factors.
THE ROLE OF KRUPSKAYA
However, the puzzles of Lenin’s remarkable changes of opinion up on Stalin, on Trotsky and on Transcaucasia are not explicable on psycho-pathological grounds alone. The political role of Krupskaya must be examined to unravel the puzzle further. Although on 18 December 1922 a Plenum of the Central Committee, had:
‘Made Stalin personally responsible for the observance of the regime prescribed for Lenin by the doctors.’96
Nevertheless, Stalin was prevented from seeing Lenin :
‘Though virtually Lenin’s legal guardian, Stalin never saw his charge in person’.97
In fact after 13 December, Stalin never saw Lenin alive at all:
‘The last time Stalin saw Lenin alive… Was 13 December’.98
This was supposedly for strict medical rules, since:
‘Strict rules were established, and it was agreed that no visitors should be allowed. Except for the doctors, immediate family, he was permitted to see only his secretaries... He was to be isolated almost as completely as a prisoner in the Peter Paul fortress’.99
In these conditions of isolation, an extremely important role was played by Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya*. Her biographer Robert McNeal* speaks of Krupskaya’s:
‘Long personal antipathy to Stalin’.100
After Lenin’s death in 1924, Krupskaya participated in the Opposition. McNeal speaks of her
‘Readiness to lean towards the opposition. Krupskaya... really stood with the opposition. It dates her entry into this status. Krupskaya was in reality coming round to... signing a manifesto of protest against official policy. This document was the work of Zinoviev*.... Kamenev*, Krupskaya and Sokolnikov* (the Commissar of Finance) jointly signed a ‘platform’ attacking the leadership... It was circulated among members of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission. The 14th Party Congress (in December 1925) was the pinnacle of Krupskaya’s career in the opposition. It was left to her to begin the opposition’s critique. Krupskaya remained in the opposition… until October 1926. She signed the major political manifesto that the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition produced in this period, the ‘Declaration of the Thirteen’ ... along with another protest against Soviet policy in the English General Strike of 1926’.101
‘Krupskaya stood firmly behind Zinoviev and Kamenev... She was now eager to testify in favour of Zinoviev U5 interpretation of Leninism and against socialism in one country’.102
At the 15th Conference of the CPSU in November 1926, Stalin hinted that Krupskaya had broken with the opposition:
‘Is it not a fact that Comrade Krupskaya, for instance, is leaving the opposition bloc? (Stormy applause)’.103
But not until six months later, in May 1927, did Krupskaya herself confirm this:
‘On May 20 1927, ‘Pravda’ carried a short, undated note from Krupskaya to the editor. In it she gave the Party and the public at large the first confirmation that she had left the opposition... There was no word of repentance on any specific issue’.104
Afterwards,
‘She even explained her membership of the opposition as if it had been quite correct’.105
Robert Payne* – a biographer of Lenin who is violently antagonistic to Stalin – admits that Krupskaya took advantage of her role during Lenin’s illness to feed selected items of ‘information’ to him :
‘Krupskaya showed not the slightest intention of carrying out the orders of the doctors and the Politburo; and so small scraps of information were fed to Lenin... While he lay ill, she was his ears and eyes, his sole powerful contact with the outside world’.106
These selected items of ‘information’ were naturally hostile to Stalin, and favourable to Trotsky and to the ‘Georgian deviators’ and Krupskaya’s biographer agrees that Stalin was justified in suspecting her of having influenced Lenin’s attitude towards him in 1923-24:
‘She (Krupskaya – Ed.) may have influenced Lenin’s attitude toward Stalin, intentionally or otherwise. Stalin is justified in suspecting that she had, as he later intimated’.107
While Payne is even more frank:
‘Krupskaya did what she had to do: she waged war against Stalin’.108
On 22 December Stalin rebuked Krupskaya on the telephone for her role in feeding selective items of ‘information’ to Lenin and threatened to bring the matter before the Central Control Commission of the CPSU. On the following day she wrote to a letter of complaint to Lev Kamenev* on Stalin’s ‘rudeness’:
‘Stalin subjected me to a storm of the coarsest abuse yesterday about a brief note that Lenin dictated to me. I know better than all the doctors what can and what cannot be said to Ilyich, for I know what disturbs him and what doesn’t. And in any case I know better than Stalin. I have no doubt as to the unanimous decision of the Control Commission with which Stalin takes it upon himself to threaten me, but I have neither the time nor the energy to lose in such a stupid farce’.109
When this incident came to Lenin’s knowledge, on 5 March 1923 he wrote to Stalin saying:
‘You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language... What has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you, therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to… make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off’.110
Lenin’s sister, Maria Ulyanova,* wrote to the Presidium of the 1926 Joint Plenum of the CC and CCC, stating that: ‘Stalin offered to apologise’.111




http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm

[Geiseric]

He just apoligized for the georgian affair, and chauvanism, so everything's cool? Bite me. Do you even know about what Stalin ordered during the invasion of georgia?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So are you trying to say that it was fabricated? That's quite delicious, because it's only further proof that, in the absence of any real evidence, Trotskyites have to create fictional accounts of history that are unfalsifiable in order to justify themselves. What's even more interesting is that there are many who claim that Lenin's will itself was falsified by opponents of Stalin, so I guess two can play at that game: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...n2/blandlt.htm (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm)

Quote:

Comrade to say that Lenin or Trotsky were critical leaders without which the Revolution might not have happened is a matter of record. No honest person familiar with the facts would deny this. That Stalin was a key leader of the revolution is part of his cult of personality because it is a lie, and no more true than Kim Jong-il's ability to shoot an 18 hole golf round of 18.
Except you're not simply stating the facts, you're glorifying Trotsky's role to messianic proportions, creating alternate history stories ("Trotsky would have done this while Stalin would have done this, if only we had won!"), and downplaying everything that Stalin did. You are far from objective in this discussion. http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2587418)

No, I'm saying that it fails to prove Stalin was critical DURING the Revolution, fer fucksake. The date of the quote is the end of November. You do know that date of the Russian Revolution, right. Can we agree on that?


I am also saying that Trotsky, as head of the Military Revolutionary Committee, and President of the Petrograd Soviet played an indespensible role. Or do you question these facts? Stalin did not play a critical role and in fact argued in favor of supporting the Provisional Government headed by the Kadet Party and Prince Lvov before Lenin returned to correct the Bolshevik leadership's position. In 1917 Trotsky and Lenin's key differences were resolved and Trotsky was taken into the fucking CC and PB of the Bolsheviks. The key differences? Trotsky came over to Lenin's view of the vanguard party and Trotsky came over to Trotsky's view on permanent revolution (which meant that the Russian Revolution was not going to be a bourgeois democratic revolution, but result in the dictatorship of the proletariat).

In Jack Reed's book, Ten Days That Shook the World, Stalin is not mentioned. In Sukhanov's History of the Russian Revolution, Stalin is barely mentioned. In good bourgeois historian's writings, Stalin is hardly mentioned (e.g., Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks Come to Power). In your vapid Stalinist manner, you might say, "so what?" He was editing Pravda for a while and he was on the CC. All true. But it is the mendacity of Stalin and the epigones that is exposed here. Stalin was unknown to the people of Petrograd. He was a diligent party worker -- later writings about Stalin glorify his role in the February to October period. These are lies.


It is true that Trotsky wrongly called for conciliation with the Mensheviks until 1914, but he was convinced by the betrayals of the reformist Social Democrats in World War I that a split was inevitable and necessary. Lenin himself remarked that, "Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik" ("Minutes of the Petrograd Committee of the Bolshevik Party," 1 [14] November 1917). Stalin, on the other hand, called for unification with the Mensheviks as late as April 1917 when the issue was sharply posed and Tseretelli (the Menshevik leader) was soon to enter the bourgeois Provisional Government!
"Order of the day: Tseretelli's proposal for unification.
"Stalin: We ought to go. It is necessary to define our proposals as to the terms of unification. Unification is possible along the lines of Zimmerwald-Kienthal [antiwar conferences in World War I]."
--"Draft Protocol of the March 1917 All-Russian Conference of Party Workers"
From: The Stalin School of Falsification Revisited

[Questionable]

No, I'm saying that it fails to prove Stalin was critical DURING the Revolution, fer fucksake. The date of the quote is the end of November. You do know that date of the Russian Revolution, right. Can we agree on that?Even so, Stalin still played a critical role in Party affairs during Lenin's time, even if he hadn't rose to prominence in that particular moment. I'll admit that I misunderstood your point about it being after the revolution, but I'm not really ashamed because I see Trots claim all the time that bits of information published after Stalin's rise to power are lies simply because they contradict Trotsky, so the misunderstanding was due to my past experiences.

Despite what the workers may have thought, Lenin himself was praising Stalin even before the revolution, as early as 1913 and on into 1922. So the "fact" that he called for Stalin's expulsion and praised Trotsky in his last will should be understood in that context. It is an exaggeration at best (misinformation at worst) to claim that Lenin and Trotsky's "key differences" were resolved by 1917 when Lenin criticized Trotsky for his stance on various issues up until his death, including his position on the trade unions and his factionalism.

Overall, this really doesn't prove the validity of Trotsky's theories over Stalin's or Lenin's. Trots are once again utilizing the cult of personality, the thing they so often criticize Stalin for, in order to give themselves legitimacy. As I said before, even if Trotsky was successful as the Red Army commander, it doesn't mean his word is unquestionable holy writ. This elevation of individuals and downplaying of others contributions should strike any communist as alien to actual Marxism and Leninism, as should the Trotskyites' insistence that the Party should have governed itself based on Lenin's last will.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Even so, Stalin still played a critical role in Party affairs during Lenin's time, even if he hadn't rose to prominence in that particular moment. I'll admit that I misunderstood your point about it being after the revolution, but I'm not really ashamed because I see Trots claim all the time that bits of information published after Stalin's rise to power are lies simply because they contradict Trotsky, so the misunderstanding was due to my past experiences.

Despite what the workers may have thought, Lenin himself was praising Stalin even before the revolution, as early as 1913 and on into 1922. So the "fact" that he called for Stalin's expulsion and praised Trotsky in his last will should be understood in that context. It is an exaggeration at best (misinformation at worst) to claim that Lenin and Trotsky's "key differences" were resolved by 1917 when Lenin criticized Trotsky for his stance on various issues up until his death, including his position on the trade unions and his factionalism.

Overall, this really doesn't prove the validity of Trotsky's theories over Stalin's or Lenin's. Trots are once again utilizing the cult of personality, the thing they so often criticize Stalin for, in order to give themselves legitimacy. As I said before, even if Trotsky was successful as the Red Army commander, it doesn't mean his word is unquestionable holy writ. This elevation of individuals and downplaying of others contributions should strike any communist as alien to actual Marxism and Leninism, as should the Trotskyites' insistence that the Party should have governed itself based on Lenin's last will.
You just can't wrap your brain around the primacy of program, can you? Lenin thought highly of Stalin, with reservations, until late in his life -- that is a fact that I do not deny. Just as clearly, Lenin deeply valued and at times depended on Trotsky. This is all well and good. It doesn't really matter of Lenin and Stalin were close, or had monkey sex together. It is all about program. But you do not respond to any programmatic aspect of my posts. And the technique of attacking your opponent for your own foibles (e.g., cult of personality) is extremely hackneyed.

When I bring up SOIC, or the horrific mess in China, you just wave your arm and dismiss it. These are the real issues -- not if Lenin criticized Trotsky in a polemic in 1904. If he polemicized more against Trotsky it is because Trotsky took independent positions that sometimes clashed with Lenin. Stalin was very careful to attach himself to the winning side of most arguments -- he did slip up in 1917 in a big way -- but as you might know, Kamenev and Zinoviev played a far worse role in 1917 than Stalin, ultimately publicly denouncing the Bolshivik intention lead the proletariat to power.

Buying the Stalinist view of history requires that one either be ignorant of what actually happened, willfully blind, or highly adept at suspending disbelief. That Stalin himself was required to rewrite history over and over to mesh with a given position he held at a given time speaks volumes about Stalinist methodology. As someone said, cynicism is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Thanks for the tribute, comrade.

[Questionable]

When I bring up SOIC, or the horrific mess in China, you just wave your arm and dismiss it. These are the real issues -- not if Lenin criticized Trotsky in a polemic in 1904. If he polemicized more against Trotsky it is because Trotsky took independent positions that sometimes clashed with Lenin. Stalin was very careful to attach himself to the winning side of most arguments -- he did slip up in 1917 in a big way -- but as you might know, Kamenev and Zinoviev played a far worse role in 1917 than Stalin, ultimately publicly denouncing the Bolshivik intention lead the proletariat to power.

Buying the Stalinist view of history requires that one either be ignorant of what actually happened, willfully blind, or highly adept at suspending disbelief. That Stalin himself was required to rewrite history over and over to mesh with a given position he held at a given time speaks volumes about Stalinist methodology. As someone said, cynicism is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Thanks for the tribute, comrade.My goal was to prove that all this talk of Lenin's will, if it was even written by him, was produced under extremely hectic circumstances, and not only contradicts everything he said previously about Stalin and Trotsky, but should not be used to govern the Party because that kind of individualism is alien to its practice.

I have done that. My goal was not to get into another long-winded debate about this or that Soviet policy, because that's been done a thousand times by Marxist-Leninists on this website who have stood their ground against Trotskyite claims. Anyone can search for "Spanish Civil War" and see a thousand threads pop up. The irony of all this, which I suspect Trots can't see, is that Bronsteinovich entered this thread extolling the character of Trotsky and talking about how he was beloved by the masses thus making him objectively better than Stalin, but now that all those claims have been exposed for the crap they are, he insults me for focusing on trivialities instead of program! Bronsteinovich's ability to jump from point to point while giving off the appearance that he has never wavered will make him an excellent politician, probably in some little Trotskyist splinter group.

Bronsteinovich attempted to drag me into that debate when the validity of Lenin's will was disputed, and I refused, because that is not why I came here, nor is it as if these issues have never been discussed by Marxist-Leninists. If Bronsteinovich and all his acolytes want to thank each others posts and laugh at the dumb Stalinist, they can. It does not bother me. I entered this discussion with the intention of proving that Lenin's last testament could not be used as 100% full-proof evidence that Lenin hated Stalin. I have done so, and Bronsteinovich's best response has been to attempt to shift the conversation to other areas, hence his obsession about the "primacy of program." I won't get drawn into the millionth-and-one Trotsky vs. Stalin debate, because unlike Trots I have no love for repeating the same thing ad nauseum, so this conversation will just have to end.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

My goal was to prove that all this talk of Lenin's will, if it was even written by him, was produced under extremely hectic circumstances, and not only contradicts everything he said previously about Stalin and Trotsky, but should not be used to govern the Party because that kind of individualism is alien to its practice.

I have done that. My goal was not to get into another long-winded debate about this or that Soviet policy, because that's been done a thousand times by Marxist-Leninists on this website who have stood their ground against Trotskyite claims. Anyone can search for "Spanish Civil War" and see a thousand threads pop up. The irony of all this, which I suspect Trots can't see, is that Bronsteinovich entered this thread extolling the character of Trotsky and talking about how he was beloved by the masses thus making him objectively better than Stalin, but now that all those claims have been exposed for the crap they are, he insults me for focusing on trivialities instead of program! Bronsteinovich's ability to jump from point to point while giving off the appearance that he has never wavered will make him an excellent politician, probably in some little Trotskyist splinter group.

Bronsteinovich attempted to drag me into that debate when the validity of Lenin's will was disputed, and I refused, because that is not why I came here, nor is it as if these issues have never been discussed by Marxist-Leninists. If Bronsteinovich and all his acolytes want to thank each others posts and laugh at the dumb Stalinist, they can. It does not bother me. I entered this discussion with the intention of proving that Lenin's last testament could not be used as 100% full-proof evidence that Lenin hated Stalin. I have done so, and Bronsteinovich's best response has been to attempt to shift the conversation to other areas, hence his obsession about the "primacy of program." I won't get drawn into the millionth-and-one Trotsky vs. Stalin debate, because unlike Trots I have no love for repeating the same thing ad nauseum, so this conversation will just have to end.

Ah, well. I was unsuccessful in my dragging I guess. You won't debate on issues. You just want to make it clear that Lenin's LWT is not really important. I think you are wrong, but the point is debatable and of tertiary importance. And you are the one that engages in hyperbole. Lenin had certainly said critical things about Stalin prior to the LWT, and very positive things about Trotsky. -- you and your comrades present an insanely skewed view of this. But take a look at the language you use. "100% full-proof evidence that Lenin hated Stalin." Who really gives a shit if Lenin hated or loved Stalin? That is Cult of Personality crap. I would say, the LWT along with some of the last articles that Lenin wrote, provide strong evidence that Lenin was preparing a political fight against Stalin -- against the way he ran the Control Commission and against his actions in the Caucasus. A POLITICAL FIGHT. The LWT was not an overheated polemic, it was a document intended to move the PB to specific action and was highly unusual for Lenin.

But, of course, if that were the end of it, so what? That is where Stalinist methodology is so fucked up. Most of the real crimes of Stalin came later. The reason we need to even discuss this is because Stalin and the epigones used the mantle of Lenin to cover their counterrevolutionary politics over and over again. I don't want you to get away with that crap here.

Your descriptions of what I have written are dishonest. I would never say that Trotsky positions were better because he was "beloved" by the masses. I was speaking to the monstrous mountain of Lies that Stalin and his comrades built, including that Stalin was a hero of the Revolution and Trotsky an impediment. The OP asked if Trotsky was a counterrevolutionary. It must suck to have no reasonable tools other than slander and insinuation at your disposal. Of course you don't want to talk program -- you can only look foolish if you do. But you can try to cast doubt on Lenin's LWT. Oh Brother:rolleyes:.

[Brutus]

This has strayed off topic to a "who did Lenin like better because Lenin is God?" topic.

[Per Levy]

that people still go into threads like this, this topic is so boring and every thread on it is so fruitless that it is just dumb. @op good way to troll several people on here though.

[MarxArchist]

Who gives a shit. He's dead. Moving forward.....?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This has strayed off topic to a "who did Lenin like better because Lenin is God?" topic.
It is hard not to get drawn into these discussions. I think it does matter who carried forward a Marxist, Leninist program. But it does become a needless distraction to discuss who Lenin liked better. Obviously Lenin made mistakes at time.

[Questionable]

The OP asked if Trotsky was a counterrevolutionary. It must suck to have no reasonable tools other than slander and insinuation at your disposal.

Actually I sent the OP plenty of works criticizing Trotsky from both a theoretical and historical standpoint. I didn't post them here because I knew I'd just be trolled.


Who really gives a shit if Lenin hated or loved Stalin? That is Cult of Personality crap.

In your own words (Emboldening mine):


Lenin understood who Stalin was before anyone else did and suggested he be removed from the position of Secretary of the Party. Lenin was preparing a bloc with Trotsky against Stalin before his last stroke completely disabled him. He broke off personal relations with Stalin after he dictated his "last will and testament."


You don't think Lenin recommending the removal of Stalin because he was rude and disloyal was of any import?


But Lenin, LENIN, did call for his removal and called him "rude and disloyal.


Lenin wrote his Last will before he broke off personal relations with Stalin -- the personal break was based on Stalin harassing and abusing Krupskaya. Lenin didn't call for the removal of someone from an important party post just because he was pissed, ever. Seems you can't help but reduce it to the personal, comrade


In 1917 Trotsky and Lenin's key differences were resolved and Trotsky was taken into the fucking CC and PB of the Bolsheviks.

So it seems like you're the one that gives a shit. Or at least you were.

[l'Enfermé]

Who gives a shit. He's dead. Moving forward.....?
You are spamming. If you don't give a shit about this thread, don't post in it, maybe?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Actually I sent the OP plenty of works criticizing Trotsky from both a theoretical and historical standpoint. I didn't post them here because I knew I'd just be trolled.



In your own words (Emboldening mine):











So it seems like you're the one that gives a shit. Or at least you were.

You can't get this? That if Lenin was waging a POLITICAL fight against Stalin that it mattered and it was not simply about personal issues? Nope, that's foreign to you.

The differences Lenin resolved with Trotsky were POLiTICAL differences. Cripes. The accusations that Trotsky was anti-Party and anti-Marxist/Leninist were lies. But they were also of a POLITICAL nature in that they were used to destroy the LO (ultimately to destroy any possible political opposition to Stalin and his inner circle). So they need to be answered on some level. Especially when one such as you still subscribes to this poison.

[electro_fan]

the left

[Questionable]

You can't get this? That if Lenin was waging a POLITICAL fight against Stalin that it mattered and it was not simply about personal issues? Nope, that's foreign to you.

It's quite foreign to me when I've already proven that Lenin protected Stalin's position in the Party and often entrusted certain Party tasks specifically to him. That's an odd political fight Lenin was waging.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It's quite foreign to me when I've already proven that Lenin protected Stalin's position in the Party and often entrusted certain Party tasks specifically to him. That's an odd political fight Lenin was waging.
Yes, it is sooo weird that Lenin would launch a political fight with someone that he had earlier worked well with. Kind of spooky, isn't it? He would never do that would he? Oh, geez I forgot about his fight with Zinoviev and Kamenev over armed insurrection in October. So his desire to have a political fight with Stalin over his gross mishandling of matters in Georgia and his concentrating bureaucratic power in his hands in the Control Commission and the Secretariat is simply too bizarre to consider.

What you have proven is that you are either ignorant or one very cynical comrade.

[Questionable]

Yes, it is sooo weird that Lenin would launch a political fight with someone that he had earlier worked well with. Kind of spooky, isn't it? He would never do that would he? Oh, geez I forgot about his fight with Zinoviev and Kamenev over armed insurrection in October. So his desire to have a political fight with Stalin over his gross mishandling of matters in Georgia and his concentrating bureaucratic power in his hands in the Control Commission and the Secretariat is simply too bizarre to consider.

What you have proven is that you are either ignorant or one very cynical comrade.

Lenin called Zinoviev and Kamenov's actions treachery. The worst he called Stalin was "rude," and he continually criticized Zinoviev, Kamenov, and Trotsky far more than Stalin until the last few weeks of his life.

[Geiseric]

Stalin was responsible for the red terror in georgia, which fucked over everybody, not just the bourgeois and mensheviks. It was a racist, oppressive, bureaucratic invasion of georgia, which was identified as the same nationality as the rest of the caucus nations, which provided Stalin the political support from his later toades such as beria.

[ind_com]

I have a few questions, from Trotsky's 'If America Should Go Communist'.

Trotsky ends his piece with "While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man." Did Trotsky support eugenics in the form of selectively breeding humans?

Trotsky also assures that the overthrown capitalists will be around and still not conduct class struggle against the victorious working class when he says "Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them."

In the above part, Trotsky implies that capitalists will be left free after the revolution. Moreover, he goes on to suggest a plan that makes the post-revolution society seem like an oriental-vacation for capitalists and counter-revolutionaries. He says, "As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please." The capitalists and counter-revolutionaries who exploit and starve workers, destroy their lives, will be sent on this kind of honeymoon trips? And it seems that the islands that Trotsky mentions were some Carribean colonies of the USA. Why did Trotsky present such a capitalist-friendly and watered down version of revolution, including his implicit support for the US keeping colonies? He started the piece with a subtle attack on the USSR and later seemed to assure the capitalists that he would never harm them. Why?

[Thirsty Crow]

He started the piece with a subtle attack on the USSR and later seemed to assure the capitalists that he would never harm them. Why?
Oh that's nice. It must be that he was a pro-capitalist infiltrator all along.

But to try and answer your question, he's being quite reasonable here when stressing that, once they are expropriated, ex-capitalists first need to rely on other people in conducting their struggle against the working class - and once this becomes impossible, or even highly unlikely, there simply isn't any room left for their don Quixote like fight.

In this sense, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to either lock them up for good or to have them shot.

The capitalists and counter-revolutionaries who exploit and starve workers, destroy their lives, will be sent on this kind of honeymoon trips?The desire for revenge needs to be curtailed severely. It must not become a regulating principle in domestic security policies of the new proletarian power.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lenin called Zinoviev and Kamenov's actions treachery. The worst he called Stalin was "rude," and he continually criticized Zinoviev, Kamenov, and Trotsky far more than Stalin until the last few weeks of his life.
It is hard to know if "rude" is any better than, "disloyal," and "capricious." Yes comrade, the LWT was a love letter to Stalin and has no implications other than Lenin was demented QED. Also his articles trashing Stalin and his lieutenants for their conduct in Georgia, they were actually praise for Stalin and had no meaning. Again you miss my point that Lenin was capable of attacking long standing, close comrades when he felt they were politically (there he goes again. . .) out of line.

[ind_com]

Oh that's nice. It must be that he was a pro-capitalist infiltrator all along.

But to try and answer your question, he's being quite reasonable here when stressing that, once they are expropriated, ex-capitalists first need to rely on other people in conducting their struggle against the working class - and once this becomes impossible, or even highly unlikely, there simply isn't any room left for their don Quixote like fight.

In this sense, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to either lock them up for good or to have them shot.
The desire for revenge needs to be curtailed severely. It must not become a regulating principle in domestic security policies of the new proletarian power.

Thanks for answering one of my questions! So is it the declared position of Trot parties that the capitalists and their agents who have committed numerous crimes against humanity, will be free to roam about after the revolution just because some of us are presumably too loving to lock them up? It would be interesting to see a communist party to put this up in their political programme and present it to the working class.

[Thirsty Crow]

So is it the declared position of Trot parties that the capitalists and their agents who have committed numerous crimes against humanity, will be free to roam about after the revolution just because some of us are presumably too loving to lock them up?

I have no idea about Trotskyist parties, and nor do I want to pretend to speak in the name of Trots. Use the internet yourself, it's not that hard.

Secondly, screw your liberal rhetoric of the crimes against humanity.

Third, it's not that surprising to see that you can't, or won't, engage the real content of what Trotsky says there, and my interpretation of it:

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them

(bold mine)

And:


But to try and answer your question, he's being quite reasonable here when stressing that, once they are expropriated, ex-capitalists first need to rely on other people in conducting their struggle against the working class - and once this becomes impossible, or even highly unlikely, there simply isn't any room left for their don Quixote like fight.

In this sense, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to either lock them up for good or to have them shot.

Why should I bother explaining something that is abundantly clear to someone who has either no capacities for understanding or no desire to understand something, and not distort it?


It would be interesting to see a communist party to put this up in their political programme and present it to the working class.Because the working class is just waiting for the Party of blood tsunamis and revenge. Seriously, go eat some dirt.

[ind_com]

I have no idea about Trotskyist parties, and nor do I want to pretend to speak in the name of Trots. Use the internet yourself, it's not that hard.

I did, but never found the mention of anything similar by any communist party. That leads me to believe that your explanation is too poor for even Trots to accept.



Secondly, screw your liberal rhetoric of the crimes against humanity.

Uh, so you're trying to defend capitalists here and yet calling me liberal?


Third, it's not that surprising to see that you can't, or won't, engage the real content of what Trotsky says there, and my interpretation of it:

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them

(bold mine)

And:

That's what I was referring to. Instead of imprisoning capitalists, your idealist utopia would have them roaming about until they gave up.



Why should I bother explaining something that is abundantly clear to someone who has either no capacities for understanding or no desire to understand something, and not distort it?

If you don't want to, then don't. Who is asking you to reply to my posts and make pointless remarks?


Because the working class is just waiting for the Party of blood tsunamis and revenge. Seriously, go eat some dirt.

Nope, the working class is waiting to rise up spontaneously and overthrow capitalists only for sending them to picturesque islands.

[Thirsty Crow]

I did, but never found the mention of anything similar by any communist party. That leads me to believe that your explanation is too poor for even Trots to accept.I would suppose that it is mere common sense to conclude that ex-capitalists need not be beheaded once all organized counter-revolution decidedly subsides.




Uh, so you're trying to defend capitalists here and yet calling me liberal?
Wonderful reasoning right here. Whomever isn't calling for their heads is defending them.


That's what I was referring to. Instead of imprisoning capitalists, your idealist utopia would have them roaming about until they gave up.Again, you simply can't understand a damn thing. Of course I never claimed that. Try again and try harder.

And while at it, you can show just what makes this approach an idealist one.


Nope, the working class is waiting to rise up spontaneously and overthrow capitalists only for sending them to picturesque islands.
Seriously, if you fail to see how any such measure definitely constitutes imprisonment you're lost. The goal is not to exact revenge. It is infinitely less backward as it is pragmatic - to get rid of counter-revolution in the best possible way.

Sending people off to some islands was a quirky idea on behalf of Leon. I have no idea why would anyone obsess over it, unless they got their eye on revenge killing.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The idiotic notion that all capitalists must die is just another form of empty moralism. They are "bad" and must be punished. It is immature at best. Resistance by the bourgeoisie and their supporters must be smashed, without reservation. But communists value human capacities and human lives. There are millions of people that are bourgeois or that may support the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary period. Is it your plan to kill them all? The point of socialism is not to build a new society from scratch but to base it on the highest level of capitalist achievement. So let's not go all Pol Pot here. You are suggesting that the point of a socialist revolution is to punish the current ruling class? That's religion, not Marxism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have a few questions, from Trotsky's 'If America Should Go Communist'.

Trotsky ends his piece with "While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man." Did Trotsky support eugenics in the form of selectively breeding humans?

It is not impossible that he did; eugenics was, after all, immensely popular in the period, and revolutionaries are not magically exempt from influence of bourgeois ideology. This does not, however, mean that they are not revolutionaries - "revolutionary" is not synonymous with "someone whose views are entirely agreeable". Marx, after all, made racist comments; does that mean he was not a revolutionary? Lenin was uncomfortable when it came to abortion; was he counterrevolutionary as well? Stalin was a homophobe; does this mean we must immediately condemn him as counterrevolutionary?

Racism, the pseudoscience of Galtonian eugenics, opposition to abortion, homophobia - these are all ugly examples of prejudice. But does it make any sense to discuss them in a political context unless some group is using them to justify their own prejudice (as Nazbollocks and Zyuganovites do with Stalin's homophobia and misogyny, and what they perceive to be Stalin's Great-Russian chauvinism - before I am accused of factionalism, I realise no modern consistent Marxis-Leninist groups adhere to these ugly positions)? I think not. And I am not familiar with any modern Trotskyists that support Galtonism; if you know of any, please share. I could use a good laugh.

Anyway, the quote is unclear. The "melting pot" could refer to "racial" and ethnic mixing (that is how the term is commonly used in any case), and "eugenics" could simply mean the prevention of hereditary disease - nothing in the rest of Trotsky's corpus has made me suspect that he shared the Galtonian ideology. And obviously he was not a racist - consider his comments about "Kaffirs" in "Their Morals and Ours".


Trotsky also assures that the overthrown capitalists will be around and still not conduct class struggle against the victorious working class when he says "Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them."

Well, yes. Only comrade Pol would seriously suggest that every former member of the bourgeoisie be killed; neither Bolshevik-Leninists nor Marxists-Leninists advocate such an unnecessary and petty policy.


In the above part, Trotsky implies that capitalists will be left free after the revolution. Moreover, he goes on to suggest a plan that makes the post-revolution society seem like an oriental-vacation for capitalists and counter-revolutionaries. He says, "As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please." The capitalists and counter-revolutionaries who exploit and starve workers, destroy their lives, will be sent on this kind of honeymoon trips? And it seems that the islands that Trotsky mentions were some Carribean colonies of the USA. Why did Trotsky present such a capitalist-friendly and watered down version of revolution, including his implicit support for the US keeping colonies? He started the piece with a subtle attack on the USSR and later seemed to assure the capitalists that he would never harm them. Why?

If noting that a proletarian revolution in an advanced imperialist state would not produce the same results as a proletarian revolution in a semifeudal, culturally backward state constitutes an attack on the Soviet Union, it seems that Lenin (and probably Stalin as well, but I can't think of a fitting quote right now) had attacked the Soviet Union since before its formation.

And the paragraph is more likely than not a joke - "leave them on an island somewhere and let them fend for themselves". This is no different than saying that Randians should be deported to some wild location and left to construct their libertarian paradise without the interference of their parasitic lessers.

(The point being, of course, that it would not be a vacation since they would starve to death.)

[ind_com]

The idiotic notion that all capitalists must die is just another form of empty moralism. They are "bad" and must be punished. It is immature at best. Resistance by the bourgeoisie and their supporters must be smashed, without reservation. But communists value human capacities and human lives. There are millions of people that are bourgeois or that may support the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary period. Is it your plan to kill them all? The point of socialism is not to build a new society from scratch but to base it on the highest level of capitalist achievement. So let's not go all Pol Pot here. You are suggesting that the point of a socialist revolution is to punish the current ruling class? That's religion, not Marxism.

Good job trying to place execution as the only alternative to sponsoring the bourgeoisie to a free never-ending vacation. Your notion of 'smashing the bourgeoisie' makes no sense when you conform to Trotsky's ideas of sending them to picturesque islands. Those who want to have the bourgeoisie roaming around free after the revolution are not socialists, and the liberal socialism of their dreams will never happen.

[Geiseric]

Good job trying to place execution as the only alternative to sponsoring the bourgeoisie to a free never-ending vacation. Your notion of 'smashing the bourgeoisie' makes no sense when you conform to Trotsky's ideas of sending them to picturesque islands. Those who want to have the bourgeoisie roaming around free after the revolution are not socialists, and the liberal socialism of their dreams will never happen.

You're lost. Trotsky was joking, I'm not sure if you understand his sarcasm, he does that a lot while he's writing though.. He's saying if the bourgeoisie aren't down with a revolution, we'll move them to St. Helena, or any other uninhabited island, so they can jerk eachother off if they so wish.

Trotsky and the red army weren't at all nice to the russan monarchy and bourgeois, read a book or look at really anything about the russian revolution and you'll see that.

Stalin however remarked that during the N.E.P. the Kulaks in the Caucuses should be allowed to profit off their laborers "for ten, twenty, or thirty years!" He was on the same page as scumbag Bukharin in the early to mid 20's.

[ind_com]

You're lost. Trotsky was joking, I'm not sure if you understand his sarcasm, he does that a lot while he's writing though.. He's saying if the bourgeoisie aren't down with a revolution, we'll move them to St. Helena, or any other uninhabited island, so they can jerk eachother off if they so wish.

Doesn't seem like a joke since he was talking about capitalists giving up only when they wouldn't be able to find any supporters, rather than them being incapacitated by imprisonment.


Trotsky and the red army weren't at all nice to the russan monarchy and bourgeois, read a book or look at really anything about the russian revolution and you'll see that.

That is irrelevant, because in those years Trotsky was a revolutionary.



Stalin however remarked that during the N.E.P. the Kulaks in the Caucuses should be allowed to profit off their laborers "for ten, twenty, or thirty years!" He was on the same page as scumbag Bukharin in the early to mid 20's.

Let's focus on Stalin, because making Stalin look worse won't do you much good in proving that Trotsky was an eternal revolutionary angel.

[Geiseric]

That's a strawman, however he was staunchly untill he died against capitalism. He founded the 4th international ffs, how is that being pro capitalist?

[Brutus]

To call Trotsky counter revolutionary is ridiculous.
He was an anti capitalist all his life. If one is to label all anti Stalinists counter revolutionary, you may as well label luxemburg as counter revolutionary

[Geiseric]

Luxembourg never purged the entire fucking communist party, as well as terrorize the population at large ! Goddamn, way to ignore blatant facts.

[Brutus]

Luxembourg never purged the entire fucking communist party, as well as terrorize the population at large ! Goddamn, way to ignore blatant facts.

Is this directed at me? I'm agreeing with you

[ind_com]

That's a strawman, however he was staunchly untill he died against capitalism. He founded the 4th international ffs, how is that being pro capitalist?

Trotsky's truly anti-capitalist activities like his contribution in the Russian revolution and civil war, cannot be compared to his role in founding the 4th International. The 4th International never achieved anything of revolutionary significance.

[Mauve Osprey]

1905-late 1920ish, Trotsky was pretty good, but as the 1930s come around he did begin to become quite the opportunist. He did betray the USSR, and it seems to me it was because he didn't get to be head of the party. Overall, it seemed quite childish on his part. Especially, when he tried to divide the party.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If Trotsky is counter-revolutionary then I'm the queen of Canada.

Seriously though, he was a revolutionary until the moment he died. Even if you don't agree with his ideas his contributions during the Russian Revolution certainly can't be ignored.

And yes I'm aware of the Stalinist myths that he was trying to essentially sell out the Soviet Union. I am yet to see anything besides Stalinist sources that say stuff like this. Please put down the Pravda and read some actual history.

[Brutus]

The suppression of Kronstadt could be seen as counter revolutionary. Trotsky spread the lies of 'imperialist agents', Stalin later repeated the charges of 'being imperialist agents' against the old Bolsheviks in the purges.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The suppression of Kronstadt could be seen as counter revolutionary. Trotsky spread the lies of 'imperialist agents', Stalin later repeated the charges of 'being imperialist agents' against the old Bolsheviks in the purges.

Come now, surely there is no equivalence between seizing a military fort and clamoring for "Soviets without Bolsheviks" (what? without the most numerous party in them? and this had been the ostensible programme of many an Eser White or Green warlord or directory), and peacefully contributing to the construction of the planned economy?

Perhaps there was no imperialist influence in the Kronstadt revolt, but raising a White demand, a counter-revolutionary demand, and then fleeing to White Finland (and stopping there) certainly did wonders for the reputation of the mutineers.

I mean, sure, many of the mutineers were probably starved and demoralised peasants, and it was unfortunate that the Soviet government had to respond in such force. But this was the reality of the civil war; the revolutionary romanticism attached to Kronstadt should not blind us to this.

I will grant, however, that claims about imperialist plots could be taken as evidence of the growing paranoia in the state apparatus, a paranoia that would later explode during the Yezhovshchina. But were there not material reasons for that paranoia, then and during the first few Five Year plans? I think there were.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The suppression of Kronstadt could be seen as counter revolutionary. Trotsky spread the lies of 'imperialist agents', Stalin later repeated the charges of 'being imperialist agents' against the old Bolsheviks in the purges.

Kronstadt is actually one of Trotsky's actions I'm critical of. Besides, nowhere does it say you have to support a revolutionary's every action blindly. I remember reading somewhere that Trotsky himself apparently later admitted it was a mistake. I need to verify this though.

[Brutus]

What? The sailors wanting freedom of association, assembly and speech was counter revolutionary?



THE PETROPAVLOVSK RESOLUTION (see article "Kronstadt 1921").

"Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the general meeting of ships' crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, with freedom to carry on agitation beforehand for all workers and peasants.

2. To give freedom of speech and press to workers and peasants, to anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. To secure freedom of assembly for trade unions and peasant organisations.

4. To call a non- Party conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and Petrograd province, no later than 10 March 1921.

5. To liberate all political prisoners of socialist parties, as well as workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements.

6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those being held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all political departments, since no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the state for such purposes. Instead, cultural and educational commissions should be established, locally elected and financed by the State.

8. To remove all road block detachments immediately.

9. To equalise the rations of all working people, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in factories and mills. Should such guard attachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the army from the ranks and in the factories and mills at the discretion of the workers.

11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour.

12. To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military cadets, to endorse our resolution.

13. To demand that the press give all our resolutions wide publicity.

14. To appoint an itinerant bureau of control.

15. To permit free handicraft production by ones own labour."

Pertichenko, Chairman of the Squadron Meeting.

Perepelkin, Secretary.
None of the demands listed here are counter revolutionary or could be argued, go against the revolution or the will of the working class. in fact, all of them are inline with workers democracy and at worst, only demand the state is to give more power to the masses

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Note demands 4, 5, 8, 11, and 15 for example. Demand 4 is equivalent to the "Soviets without Bolsheviks" demand I had mentioned earlier (and indeed, it was my impression that the mutiniers had used the slogan; I will check my sources). Demand 5 sounds somewhat reasonable on paper, but the worst elements of the Mensheviks and the right Esers, who thoroughly supported the Whites, were also considered "socialist parties". Demand 8 is equivalent to calling for an end to requisition; at the time, requisition was considered necessary to feed the cities and the army. Demands 11 and 15 amount to a return to petty commodity production far beyond that permitted due to the NEP; and so on and so on. There are some good ideas there, but some of the demands were either the result of political naivete or conscious opposition to the revolution.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Here's an article I just found on the issue.http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html Apparently they may have been backed by the White Army. See, that I didn't know.

[Captain Ahab]

The Kronstadt posts should be extracted and transferred to a thread made specifically for this controversial event. This thread doesn't need to be derailed into another very long and drawn out discussion over it. I will say this:

Come now, surely there is no equivalence between seizing a military fort and clamoring for "Soviets without Bolsheviks" (what? without the most numerous party in them? and this had been the ostensible programme of many an Eser White or Green warlord or directory), and peacefully contributing to the construction of the planned economy?
Leninist propaganda is something beautiful to behold.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQAppendix42

John Rees, for example, asserts that the Kronstadters were fighting for "soviets without parties." Indeed, he makes the assertion twice on one page. [Op. Cit., p. 63] Pat Stack goes one further and asserts that the "central demand of the Kronstadt rising though was 'soviets without Bolsheviks', in other words, the utter destruction of the workers' state." ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246, November 2000] Both authors quote from Paul Avrich's book Kronstadt 1921 in their articles. Let us turn to that source:



"'Soviets without Communists' was not, as is often maintained by both Soviet and non-Soviet writers, a Kronstadt slogan." [Kronstadt 1921, p. 181]
Nor did they agitate under the banner "soviets without parties." They argued for "all power to the soviets and not to parties." Political parties were not to be excluded from the soviets, simply stopped from dominating them and substituting themselves for them. As Avrich notes, the Kronstadt program "did allow a place for the Bolsheviks in the soviets, alongside the other left-wing organisations . . . Communists . . . participated in strength in the elected conference of delegate, which was the closest thing Kronstadt ever had to the free soviets of its dreams." [Ibid.] The index for Avrich's work handily includes this page in it, under the helpful entry "soviets: 'without Communists.'"
The FAQ debunks more propaganda but I don't have the time to address all your claims.

[Mauve Osprey]

What? The sailors wanting freedom of association, assembly and speech was counter revolutionary?



THE PETROPAVLOVSK RESOLUTION (see article "Kronstadt 1921").

"Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the general meeting of ships' crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, with freedom to carry on agitation beforehand for all workers and peasants.

2. To give freedom of speech and press to workers and peasants, to anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. To secure freedom of assembly for trade unions and peasant organisations.

4. To call a non- Party conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and Petrograd province, no later than 10 March 1921.

5. To liberate all political prisoners of socialist parties, as well as workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements.

6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those being held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all political departments, since no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the state for such purposes. Instead, cultural and educational commissions should be established, locally elected and financed by the State.

8. To remove all road block detachments immediately.

9. To equalise the rations of all working people, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in factories and mills. Should such guard attachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the army from the ranks and in the factories and mills at the discretion of the workers.

11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour.

12. To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military cadets, to endorse our resolution.

13. To demand that the press give all our resolutions wide publicity.

14. To appoint an itinerant bureau of control.

15. To permit free handicraft production by ones own labour."

Pertichenko, Chairman of the Squadron Meeting.

Perepelkin, Secretary.
None of the demands listed here are counter revolutionary or could be argued, go against the revolution or the will of the working class. in fact, all of them are inline with workers democracy and at worst, only demand the state is to give more power to the masses

It is a well known fact that the Kronstadt sailors were influenced/manipulated by social-revolutionaries and anarchists to revolt against the Bolsheviks. Even the Trotskyists will refer to it as "A tragic necessity," the uprising was co-opted by Kautskyites and Anarchists. The Kronstadt sailors were a threat to the developing Socialist state, they could have simply addressed their grievances much differently, than by grabbing arms and trying to kill Bolsheviks.

[Brutus]

The Bolsheviks saw their demands as a threat to their power, so attacked them. The sailors were defending themselves against the red army.

[Devrim]

Demands 11 and 15 amount to a return to petty commodity production far beyond that permitted due to the NEP;


11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour.
...
15. To permit free handicraft production by ones own labour.

How is this "far beyond that permitted due to the NEP"?

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is this "far beyond that permitted due to the NEP"?

Devrim

Peasants did not have "full freedom" during the NEP; there was still the tax in kind, government restrictions on the markets, and grain requisitioning at the close of the period. And urban petty commodity production was even more regulated; it wasn't as if anyone could open a firm.

[Devrim]

Peasants did not have "full freedom" during the NEP; there was still the tax in kind, government restrictions on the markets, and grain requisitioning at the close of the period. And urban petty commodity production was even more regulated; it wasn't as if anyone could open a firm.

There was full scale commodity production during the NEP. There were even instance of foreign businessmen setting up factories. Armand Hammer is only a well known example of this. NEPmen were allowed to set up small private firms employing up to twenty workers. Farmers were allowed to employ workers and sell their surplus.

Those clauses in the Kronstadt programme are certainly concessions to the petit-bourgeoise, but they go nowhere near as far as the NEP did.

Devrim

[Brutus]

To be able to make things by ones own labour is different to employing 20 men.

[The scythe]

what are you talking about, Stalin is the one who betrayed the revolution and Stalinism is just an excuse to kill all your enemies and consolidate power. Trotskyism is the only true Marxist and Leninist ideology that can sustain a revolution.

[General Winter]

what are you talking about, Stalin is the one who betrayed the revolution and Stalinism is just an excuse to kill all your enemies and consolidate power. Trotskyism is the only true Marxist and Leninist ideology that can sustain a revolution.

what are you talking about, Trotsky is the one who betrayed the revolution and Trotskyism is just an excuse to kill all your enemies and consolidate power. Marxism-Leninism is the only ideology that can sustain a revolution and Stalinism as an ideology has never existed.

[The scythe]

i see what you did there. but who is the one who organized the Red army and fought the 21 imperialist armies.

[General Winter]

and who is the one who overthrew the tsar in February 1917? don't you want to mourn for him too?

[The scythe]

yes Vladimir Lenin is a hero of mine which is why i hate seeing his image ruined by the opportunist that goes by the name Joseph Stalin. what i am trying to say is that Stalin added some negative aspects to Leninism and Marxism I.E. banning homosexuality and abortions and commencing ethnic cleansing on non ethnic Russian groups even though he was from Georgia and not Russia. he also promoted nationalism which is a big problem when you are trying to spread equality. that is what i am trying to say.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It all goes back to “socialism in a single country”. If you agree with that, then undermining revolution in Spain to keep UK/France from siding against the USSR is “sustaining revolution” [ie sustaining the USSR.]

But if you put all your chips on red (or red and black in this case) and see revolution as the self-emancipation of the working class (who “have no country”) then it’s not sustaining the revolution to support moderates in the (ultimately futile) hope of preserving the international status quo.

[General Winter]

yes Vladimir Lenin is a hero of mine which is why i hate seeing his image ruined by the opportunist that goes by the name Joseph Stalin. what i am trying to say is that Stalin added some negative aspects to Leninism and Marxism I.E. banning homosexuality and abortions and commencing ethnic cleansing on non ethnic Russian groups even though he was from Georgia and not Russia. he also promoted nationalism which is a big problem when you are trying to spread equality. that is what i am trying to say.

Dear boy, some untrustworthy fellows deceived you, it was not Lenin but Kerensky and Co. who overthrew the tsar, I've meant just him.

[The scythe]

Lenin was the one who incited it and was the one who saved it from the destructive hands of the Liberal Bourgeoisie. Also the Bolsheviks had the popular support of the proletariat

[General Winter]

It all goes back to “socialism in a single country”. If you agree with that, then undermining revolution in Spain to keep UK/France from siding against the USSR is “sustaining revolution” [ie sustaining the USSR.]

But if you put all your chips on red (or red and black in this case) and see revolution as the self-emancipation of the working class (who “have no country”) then it’s not sustaining the revolution to support moderates in the (ultimately futile) hope of preserving the international status quo.

I must disillusion you - a sad mission, but if I must I must - revolution cannot be made by a person, even by the will of a very influentional person. It also cannot be abolished by the will of one person. This delusion is a root of your wrong political views.

[General Winter]

Lenin was the one who incited it and was the one who saved it from the destructive hands of the Liberal Bourgeoisie. Also the Bolsheviks had the popular support of the proletariat

Lenin saved Kerensky from the destructive hands of the Liberal Bourgeoisie ? You are strongly deceived.

And you absolutely did not understand what I wanted to say - in February Kerensky was revolutionary, a few monthes later he was counterrevolutionary, that's because the revolution stepped forward and Kerensky wasn't able to follow it.

All the same thing happened with Trotsky.

[The scythe]

how does this apply to Trotsky. he is the one who fought Stalin to protect the revolution from the greedy hands of the bureaucracy. besides how was Trotsky a counter revolutionary if Stalin was the one who promoted nationalism

[Jimmie Higgins]

I must disillusion you - a sad mission, but if I must I must - revolution cannot be made by a person, even by the will of a very influentional person. It also cannot be abolished by the will of one person. This delusion is a root of your wrong political views.

Lol, thanks for the unconvincing straw-man and condescension.

Who said “will of one person”? You said the ideology sustains revolution, yet the logic of socialism in one country meant the USSR disarmed workers to help moderate elements in Spain. US CP enforced no-strike pledges in WWII and threw anti-racist work under the bus so that the USSR would seem like less of a threat to the US. How are such moves in CPs all over the world not related to an ideology that sees defending the Russian state as more important than actual workers in actual class struggle? From the socialism in one country view it’s totally rational... from a class struggle view, it’s irrational.

Stalin didn’t “make” (in my view) state-capitalism, but he presided over this and ideologically justified it. Ideology doesn’t make or sustain revolution either - actually existing workers do, the ideological question for Marxists is, what ideas help or hurt workers to self-emancipate?

[DoctorWasdarb]

Stalin committed ethnic cleansing against non-Russians? That's a common lie, for some reason, but it's complete bullshit. Stalin's first position in the government was as the commissar of nationalities, he was responsible for the national question, the response to which left non-Russian nations with more territory than ethnic lines would have given. And there were lots of economic benefits for non-Russian territories. Redistribution of wealth to the less developed and less populous regions. Leaving the Union was the biggest mistake the non-Russian republics made.

[General Winter]

Who said “will of one person”?

You did.

You said that the revolution in Spain didn't happen because the leader of the other country didn't put his chips on red.

A primitive point of view.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You did.

You said that the revolution in Spain didn't happen because the leader of the other country didn't put his chips on red.

A primitive point of view.

Lol, I did not - you are making a straw argument in order to avoid having to defend the historical record of what this ideology has sustained. The ideology you claims helps sustain revolution led CPs to the exact opposite in numerous historical cases. I was countering your claim that the socialism in one country ideology sustained revolution and my point is that the logic of that ideology led to backing European political stability over “sustaining a revolution” - it led to things like disarming revolutionary forces.

Over and over again, this view led to downplaying struggle when that was a better move for USSR relations. This makes total sense from that ideological view: sustain the USSR but revolution elsewhere might upset international relations under some conditions.

But from a class struggle view (putting it all on red, IE working class self-emancipation) having CPs enforce no-strike pledges, backing moderate forces or even capitalist parties like the Democrats makes no sense.

[The scythe]

Stalin was anti-Semitic and forcefully move ethnic minorities to underpopulated areas

[DoctorWasdarb]

Stalin was anti-Semitic and forcefully move ethnic minorities to underpopulated areas

Provide one shred of proof.

[General Winter]

Lol, I did not - you are making a straw argument in order to avoid having to defend the historical record of what this ideology has sustained. The ideology you claims helps sustain revolution led CPs to the exact opposite in numerous historical cases. I was countering your claim that the socialism in one country ideology sustained revolution and my point is that the logic of that ideology led to backing European political stability over “sustaining a revolution” - it led to things like disarming revolutionary forces.

Over and over again, this view led to downplaying struggle when that was a better move for USSR relations. This makes total sense from that ideological view: sustain the USSR but revolution elsewhere might upset international relations under some conditions.

But from a class struggle view (putting it all on red, IE working class self-emancipation) having CPs enforce no-strike pledges, backing moderate forces or even capitalist parties like the Democrats makes no sense.

Lol. "Stalin didn't put his chips on red, that's why the revolution in Spain didn't happen" - that's your claim,isn't it ?

Dear friend, the foreign help for the success of revolution is desired but not required. As a matter of fact, only two things are necessary for revolution : a presence of a revolutionary situation and a presence of a revolutionary party. The fact that there is no revolution in one or another country means only that at least one of this factors is absent - and nothing more.

In Spain (and in the whole world) in 1930s a united anti-fascist front was necessary. And you will never able to prove to me that participation in the anti-Nazi war of Britain and the United States is bad. You will never able to prove to me that the Trotskyists splitting the antifascist front acted as revolutionaries - no, they acted as provocateurs.

Further, there was no idea of "socialism in one country", you are lying. There was an idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country. Is stemmed from the fact of stabilization of capitalism in other countries - while you are trying to prove that capitalism has stabilized because of the adoption of this idea, ie you arevputing the cart before the horse.

And to top it all, the idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country in no case led to the refusal of assistance to revolutionary movements in other countries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, that is not my claim - you simply added quotes around the straw-argument you keep making. My claim is that M-Lism by putting chips on stability for Russia led to M-L forces repeatedly making the wrong choices in revolutionary situations (backing international stability over actual existing revolution). Even with hindsight, you think that France and the UK, not revolutionary workers were the best hope for Spain?

As for “splitting the revolution”: There was no real Spanish CP at the start of the Spanish revolution, it developed during the revolution, it disarmed revolutionaries and disbanded worker controlled shops... in other words split the revolution.

There were no Trotskyist parties really either. Trotsky urged revolutionaries to try and unite the left-syndicalists and left-socialist parties because in his view, both were independently coming to Bolshevik like conclusions through the conflict (ie create a derrutti like unified worker militia and fight for an independent course from the vasscilating syndicalist leaders and moderate socialist leaders.

If this is “splitting” the revolution, then the Bolsheviks also split the Russian one by rejecting calls for a united (moderate) socialist parliament.

[General Winter]

My claim is that M-Lism by putting chips on stability for Russia led to M-L forces repeatedly making the wrong choices in revolutionary situations (backing international stability over actual existing revolution).

Soviet Russia needed a friendly environment so it needed a destruction of an unfriendly environment and M-Lists by putting chips on unstability in revolutionary situations achieved revolutions in Western Europe and Asian countries. So that it is you who makes straw arguments.

You say there was a revolutionary situation in Spain. And there was a super-puper revolutionary anti-Stalinist organisation POUM. So where is revolution in Spane if there was everything necessary for it ?

You say M-Lism always put chips on stability. But you anti-stalinists do not (acoording to your claims). So where is your revolutions ?


As for “splitting the revolution”

Lying again. The talk was about splitting the antifascist front. Even with hindsight, I think that at that time the united antifascist front was the best hope for Spain and for Europe.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Soviet Russia needed a friendly environmentyes, my point exactly. From a M-L perspective it makes sense to prioritize the needs of Russia.


You say there was a revolutionary situation in Spain. And there was a super-puper revolutionary anti-Stalinist organisation POUM. I never mentioned POUM. My understanding was that they were too small. Trotsky was pissed at them, can’t remember why—I think because they were too aloof from the left-anarchists and left-socialists? I think he thought that splitting those forces from the moderate elements of the Socialists and CNT was what needed to happen.

But the POUM was small and Derrutti’s Army was too late.


So where is revolution in Spane if there was everything necessary for it ?Betrayed by moderates who were supported by counterrevolutionary M-Ls?


You say M-Lism always put chips on stability. But you anti-stalinists do not (acoording to your claims). So where is your revolutions ?M-Ls do not have revolutions, Trotskyists or anarchists do not have revolutions. The question, as you put it, is what ideas best support or “sustain” revolutions. Trotskyists would claim that the Bolsheviks showed their ideas worked to connect Revolutionaries to revolutionary workers in opposition to moderates because they tend to think of their politics as revolutionary-Bolshevism. Syndicalists would likely claim that their ideas helped workers run regions of Spain. But aside from the CNT/FAI there are not many revolutionary situations where anarchism was the dominant radical trend. M-L groups on the other hand were influential in many cases and they tripped over their own ideology thanks to things like their stage-ism and need to ensure the best international environment for Russia. These ideas and practices have made it an uphill battle to try and salvage the actual revolutionary legacy of the Bolsheviks for at least the last two generations.

[General Winter]

But the POUM was small and Derrutti’s Army was too late.


Something always hinder anti-stalinists from doing revolution,eh ? Bad dancer blames his bollocks.

BTW, POUM and the Communist Party in early 1936 were equal in number.

A paucity of revolutionary parties is a consequence of small demand for a revolution in society, ie of an absence of a revolutionary situation, which is what we set out to prove.

Briefly summarizeing :

- the idea of the possibility of a socialist construction first in one country does not lead to the refusal of assistance to revolutionary movements in other countries;

- the USSR needed not a stabilization a hostile capitalist encirclement but in it's destruction;

- anti-MLists weren't able to carry out any revolution and showed their bankruptcy.

[The scythe]

its hard for Bolshevik-Leninists to start a revolution when the ML's Purge their ranks and kisses up to the state to the point that any other ideology is illegal, The same thing happened in South Vietnam.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How does restoring property rights and disarming revolutionaries in Spain to protect a right-collaborating Republican government from workers “sustain revolution”?

[Comrade Adolf Hitler]

In fact, Trotskyism and other forms of Leninism were not a theory of proletarian revolution but vanguard coup.

[ckaihatsu]

In fact, Trotskyism and other forms of Leninism were not a theory of proletarian revolution but vanguard coup.


This is an incorrect assessment because the Bolsheviks' goal wasn't about *nationalism* ('coup'), but was actually about *internationalism* -- spreading the proletarian revolution to the rest of Europe, and to the whole world.