Anyone here a Trotskyite?

[revolutionary spirit]

I have read a nice bit on Leon Trotsky,and i think the guy was quite great,what u think of him?

[Guest1]

I would actually like to know about that school of thought. I've always found people who are hostile to them, or find them a joke, but why? Someone told me that Trotskyites simply believe in the traditional Marxism, that of the Communist Manifesto. Is this true? If so, I see no real reason for anyone to hate them... Except Stalin, who executed them en masse... But that's because of personal reasons, he killed Trotsky! Anyone can help?

[koba]

if im not mistaken trotskists are true marxists but they do beleive in renewing it. Trotskyists are generally those who strictly oppose Stalinists and Maoists because of their totalitairan and authoritarian anti democratic nature.

[Fidel Castro Ruz]

Czars are totalitarists(especially in Russia)
but there wasn't a czar,who made so much for Russia as Stalin did...even Peter the Great

[Dreadnaht1]

Yes, my friend is a trotskyite and the best term to describe them is 'Neo-Marxist'. Those who believe in the absolute Marxism and that no country has yet been communist. There is nothing wrong with this, since technically it is in fact correct. But I'm a bit looser and so are most socialists.

As for Trotsky himself, he was a great man who should of been successor to Lenin. Instead of Stalin's super corrupt rule which greatly screwed the revolution in the Soviet Union. If it had happened we might all be under the USSR's gov't instead of the capitalist's. We can only dream...

Comrade Dread

[Kez]

What deream?
Dont you think Lenin dreamed of a soviet russia?
u know what happened? we had a soviet russia

We must follow our dreams and beliefs for the revolution is coming!
Long live the revolution

comrade kamo

[revolutionary spirit]

i'm not an orthodox trotskyite,i think they are a bit like the menshiveaks,reformists,who didn't think the russian working class did not need total revolution.

[jimr]

In a way i subscirbe to teh views of che, for a communist government to be implemented it must be started by a popular uprising. The next stage is seen as the transformation stage. In this stage, for the end to be achieved, the means may indeed need to be gruesum. The transition period tests the loyalty of the revolutionaries, from those that have the patience to wait for things to get better, or those that wish to scrap the revolution. I do, however believe that a true communist state has never been seen, and it would take a tremendous leader, of teh like of which has never been seen, a leader who did not see his postion as a goal to be achieved, but rather as a nessesity for the good of the masses.

[Capitalist]

A Communist, Socialist, Trotskiest, Marxists, a Che-Guevaraist, a Fidelista ????

They are all the same.

Good Intentions - Yet misguided and eventually corruptable.

Revolution for the people?

No, Revolution for Absolute Power.

Revolution for Reform?

No, Revolution for Revenge

Revolution?

No, Oppression!

[libereco]

Quote: from Capitalist on 10:06 pm on Dec. 10, 2001
A Communist, Socialist, Trotskiest, Marxists, a Che-Guevaraist, a Fidelista ????

They are all the same.

Good Intentions - Yet misguided and eventually corruptable.

Revolution for the people?

No, Revolution for Absolute Power.

Revolution for Reform?

No, Revolution for Revenge

Revolution?

No, Oppression!

i don't see how socialists fit in that equation......if i'm not mistaken "democratic" parties can also be considered socialist.

[Capitalist]

Libreco may have a point. Socialism can be effective.

When I think of socialism - I think of community sharing.

There are certain items that should be shared, Government Controlled via Private Contracts, and in some cases - just government controlled.

Example - Interstates, Autobahns, Subways, Libraries, Court Houses, etc.

Perhaps I agree with socialism on items that can't be provided for using Capitalism.

However!

I believe in Government issuing vouchers and contracts for many socialistic items is the way to go.

For example - schools.

I believe that Government should provide vouchers to parents.

The parents can then choose the school to send their child to.

The parent will give the voucher to the private school. The school will then cash the voucher in for government money to pay for teacher's salaries, books, supplies, and director fees.

Schools that do not teach, have low test scores, etc. - go out of business.

Schools that provide good education will stay in business. Parents and students should have the choice of school. Currently in the U.S. - public schools have the power, not the students.

Road Construction - same thing.

Contracts should be issued to those construction companies that can provide the best quality work for the cheapest price. Government should not perform road construction. However Governemnt should supervise and fund road construction via taxes. Inspect the quality of work - and black list construction companies that do not provide quality roads. Do not issue contracts to poor performing companies.

Now some things should be directly controlled by the government.

For example - Courts and Police Departments - for obvious reasons.

So perhaps I agree somewhat with certain aspects of socialism.

But I do not believe in a total socialistic/Communistic system, in which people do not have a right to own their own business. Business and Capitalism provides jobs. People work for themselves and in turn work for the community.

Face it!

people are people - they all think alike.

People will always think about themselves first!

Then the community second.

It is a plain and simple fact. That people should have the right to provide for themselves first. The individual comes first. Once the individual's needs are met - he/she can then deliver the community's needs next.

It is O.K. to be selfish as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

[libereco]

I see privatizing schools as a great danger....

firstly the person running them will teach what he wants to be teached. You will simply read the literature they present you and learn to see things from their viewpoint.
this is already the case in state controlled schools, but it would get worse.

but the worst is that schools, in order to stay open, would have to get more "efficient".
You know what that means, cut the arts, cut everything unecessary for the fastest capitalist career.
You only learn the essentials, only what you need in order to do your job, and you will probably be more successful that way too. But something gets lost, that i don't want to lose.

[Dreadnaht1]

Private schools are evil. Everyone should go to the same type of nationalized, public, free school and have an unbiased learning experience. Not the bullshit we experience in America.

And it is never ever OK to be selfish because eventually it starts killing people.

(Edited by Dreadnaht1 at 5:57 am on Dec. 11, 2001)

[Markxs]

yes correct sometimes revolutions are evil. the political liberal, economical liberal, and the industrial. all lead to the same thing power switching from kings to bussnismen and back. over the backs of the proleterait!

face it

democracy,liberalism,isolationalism

its all the same and all really efficient for the ones who get born rich. i dont want no court which is funded by that type of goverment or a school or even public toilet. i think we must do what bush says and leave health care and stuff like that to the church. then he will meet the death which his own gun proffecy lead him. .........god bless america

home of the rich grave of the poor!

[revolutionary spirit]

''people are people''

shit,u don't think socity can be changed??i think it can,look at the past,it changes all the time.Maybe if certain groups of people stopped saying that u must be better than the other man,success at all cost,but maybe if the emphasis of this was taken off then a true socialistic enviornment,and not a few people trying to make the many think that they can't be nothing unless they are better than the rest then we will all leap forward together.

[DaNatural]

trotsky is quite an interesting character, he was one of the leaders of the revolution. in fact hell he led the army in the final seige. he orchestrated all the plans then with his army caried them out. his writings are also quite good, one thing i admire about him is that he opposes individual terrorism, he beleives that we have a beef with a system not with an individual and we must address the problem as a group. its unfortunate he did not take over after perhaps things would have been better. peace

[revolutionary spirit]

no doubt about it,he was a great man.

[MJM]

He was defeated by Stalin in the theory of Marxism.
Therefore Stalin took control of Russia and brought the country forward about 100 years in only 5 years.
What would trotsky have done I wonder.
Krushchev split with the Chinese and ruined communism in Russia not Stalin.

[ArgueEverything]

pros of trotsky: he was an internationalist, believed in that socialism should be spread around the world, rather than simply left to exist in the USSR(which stalin believed)

cons: he suppressed popular movements in the country with brute force, like the anarchists in ukraine. the anarchists and communists should have, and could have, united like they did in the paris commune. bcos of trotsky, and stalin's backstabbing in the spanish civil war, there still remains a lot of animosity between anarchists and communists, even though they have similar ideals.