Fidel Castro says Trotsky was intellectually superior

[CatsAttack]

He says Trotsky was obviously more capable than stalin, and obviously more intelligent.

So, why didn't he say so during his 50 year reign of tyranny? why didnt he allow his book publishers to print his works? why did his offical history books continue the stalinist lies?

[Hit The North]

Because he was a client of the Soviet Union?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Because the USSR was the only thing standing between Cuba and an American coup.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Well, if I recall correctly, Trotsky was one of the few that were not rehabilitated during the destalinisation period after 1956. The USSR and Cuba being so closely linked together economically also had political implications. I assume this also meant not supporting political-enemies, dead or alive of the USSR.
Why now and not immediately after the fall of the wall? Who knows, maybe he still believed Trotsky wasn't for that time.

I personally don't think the question is all that relevant and I don't know if Trotsky was superior.
For all it's worth, the position on Trotsky is least of the problems the left should have with Cuba.

[CatsAttack]

Because the USSR was the only thing standing between Cuba and an American coup.

USSR hasn't been around for over 20 years.

[Lenin1986]

Trotsky was undermining Stalin's grip on power. So Stalin got rid of him and in the process tried to get Trotsky wrote out of the history books. Stalin had all Trotsky's books band because in a lot of his books Trotsky tells the real parts played by Stalin in different parts of Russian history.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

USSR hasn't been around for over 20 years.

USSR-style politics have been in Cuba, not identical of course but still.
Cuba is opening up, maybe this also means the disappearing of USSR-ideology in a sense. Who knows?

[CatsAttack]

Well, if I recall correctly, Trotsky was one of the few that were not rehabilitated during the destalinisation period after 1956. The USSR and Cuba being so closely linked together economically also had political implications. I assume this also meant not supporting political-enemies, dead or alive of the USSR.
Why now and not immediately after the fall of the wall? Who knows, maybe he still believed Trotsky wasn't for that time.

I personally don't think the question is all that relevant and I don't know if Trotsky was superior.
For all it's worth, the position on Trotsky is least of the problems the left should have with Cuba.

The Trotsky question is the most significant question in the modern socialist movement.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The Trotsky question is the most significant question in the modern socialist movement.

Yeah, uhm, no.

[CatsAttack]

Trotsky was undermining Stalin's grip on power. So Stalin got rid of him and in the process tried to get Trotsky wrote out of the history books. Stalin had all Trotsky's books band because in a lot of his books Trotsky tells the real parts played by Stalin in different parts of Russian history.

Thanks for the short history lesson. But let's get back to the thread subject.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

USSR hasn't been around for over 20 years.

That's because I'm not talking about the modern Cuba or USSR. I'm talking about the Cuba with a very militant American army waiting offshore and a very anti-trotskyist political ally that supplied and defended Cuba. The same Cuba that censored Trotsky's works, which you have been pondering over why it's modern equivalent has changed tone.

I honestly don't understand how you didn't pick up that I was talking about historical Cuba from the moment I referenced the USSR. :confused:

[CatsAttack]

Yeah, uhm, no.

Really? What is the most important question then?

[Lenin1986]

Thanks for the short history lesson. But let's get back to the thread subject.

Sorry my bad, I read the thread wrong

[Geiseric]

Maybe he's admitting that socialism in one country (cuba, China, and the fSU) wasnt supposed to work.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Actually, could I have a source to where Castro says this? It's not that I disbelieve you, but it'd be nice to see what he actually said rather than read a drastically shortened and uncited version such as the one in the first post of this thread.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Really? What is the most important question then?

How to organize, left-unity, programme, democracy. the crisis etc.
History is important in analysis, but having a correct stance on Trotsky won't suddenly bring about a revolution.

[Bostana]

So, why didn't he say so during his 50 year reign of tyranny? why didnt he allow his book publishers to print his works? why did his offical history books continue the stalinist lies?

Don't worry Cats, were all sure you would have been a better dictator than Castro.

[CatsAttack]

How to organize, left-unity, programme, democracy. the crisis etc.


Organize what? You've avoided the Trotsky question and now you don't know we're you're coming from or where you're going.

Left-unity based on what? You have no programme.

Programme. Here it is, what kind of programme? A programme that doesn't address the rich history and lessons of the socialist movement?

And then 'democracy', an empty phrase, the crisis and 'etc.'(!!)

You won't go far my friend. Not with that line of thinking/

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Cuba was always a puppet of soviet social imperialism, nothing more nothing less. They were to the Soviet Union what the Philippines, Colombia, and Japan are to the U.S, puppet governments only separated by different colors on the map. The Cubans even sent their own Christopher Columbus by the name of Che Guvera to assist the Soviet Scramble for Africa in Congo.


Organize what? You've avoided the Trotsky question and now you don't know we're you're coming from or where you're going.

Left-unity based on what? You have no programme.

Programme. Here it is, what kind of programme? A programme that doesn't address the rich history and lessons of the socialist movement?

And then 'democracy', an empty phrase, the crisis and 'etc.'(!!)

You won't go far my friend. Not with that line of thinking/

The struggle for unity, a programme, and the methods of organization, are a question universal to every period of the communist movement, while the question of Trotsky is particular to the 30's. It seems obvious which question takes priority.

[CatsAttack]

Cuba was always a puppet of soviet social imperialism, nothing more nothing less. They were to the Soviet Union what the Philippines, Colombia, and Japan are to the U.S, puppet governments only separated by different colors on the map. The Cubans even sent their own Christopher Columbus by the name of Che Guvera to assist the Soviet Scramble for Africa in Angola.



The struggle for unity, a programme, and the methods of organization, are a question universal to every period of the communist movement, while the question of Trotsky is particular to the 30's. It seems obvious which question takes priority.

Every single post you make is filled with bullshit. You post lies, numerous lies in every single post you make. I can't believe you havent been banned yet.

The soviets sent Che to Angola? You have a brain the size of a peanut.

How do I put a user on ignore?

[CatsAttack]

Don't worry Cats, were all sure you would have been a better dictator than Castro.

What is this supposed to even mean. Can you keep your lame one liners out of the learning thread please.

[ind_com]

He says Trotsky was obviously more capable than stalin, and obviously more intelligent.

Trotsky must have hidden his intellect somewhere in the USSR before he left.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The thread degenerated quickly.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Organize what? You've avoided the Trotsky question and now you don't know we're you're coming from or where you're going.

Let me quote a phrase you should be familiar with:
'The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.'

How about organizing ourselves as a class?


Left-unity based on what? You have no programme.

Hence why I said the programme was one of the important questions of our time.


Programme. Here it is, what kind of programme? A programme that doesn't address the rich history and lessons of the socialist movement?

I myself am in favour of a minimum-maximum programme.
I am all in favour of adressing the working-class struggle, however I do not think it is the only or even most important question that needs to be adressed and I certainely am against having one single "correct" view of history as the sects seem to do.


And then 'democracy', an empty phrase, the crisis and 'etc.'(!!)

Democracy is not an empty phrase. Democratic centralism, democratic decision-making. All questions that need to be addressed, especially looking at past experiences, as you love to do.

Crisis most certainely is not an empty phrase. The capitalist profit of the crisis, workers lose their jobs, massive cuts. These are all questions that come with this crisis and is one of the most important things for actual workers.


You won't go far my friend. Not with that line of thinking/

Ok.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Every single post you make is filled with bullshit. You post lies, numerous lies in every single post you make. I can't believe you havent been banned yet.

The soviets sent Che to Angola? You have a brain the size of a peanut.

How do I put a user on ignore?

Yeah you're right that Yet Another Boring Marxist is confusing a couple of different historical events with each other but that doesn't give you a right to be a dick.

Also, can you cite the source for your original claim as some have asked?

[CatsAttack]

Yeah you're right that Yet Another Boring Marxist is confusing a couple of different historical events with each other but that doesn't give you a right to be a dick.

Also, can you cite the source for your original claim as some have asked?

He posts bullshit in every post. Casually claimed Trotsky received 8 million dollars from oil companies while in exile. When called out, he cited an obscure book by some anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. He causally posts this kind of shit in all his posts.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He posts bullshit in every post. Casually claimed Trotsky received 8 million dollars from oil companies while in exile. When called out, he cited an obscure book by some anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. He causally posts this kind of shit in all his posts.


You forgot the source part for your claim about Castro.
For all I know your claim is just as much bullshit.

[Geiseric]

The people here don't really understand that any theory or politics other than what the bolsheviks did to carry out the revolution in russia has been proven bunk by the second international and various post modern "leftist" groups (I wouldn't consider them parties). A close objective examination of the russian revolution (the only successful seizure of power by the working class) is imperative to any communists intellect.

Trotsky was along with Lenin one of the main organizers of that entire period, so it seemed common sense to me, a teenager who was just starting to be interested in political alternatives, to study those two's writings in the correct context. You can't simply scoff at the people who were actually voted in to the supreme soviets, and I wouldn't take anybody seriously who would take a man who was appointed to a position of power, which he retained with a secret police, as their ideological fore-barer.

Edit: The quote Catsattack is talking about is found here, in a review of "My Life" by Fidel Castro under the chapter "Stalin and Trotsky": http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3077

[Questionable]

The important thing is, why should an actual Marxist-Leninist give a damn what Castro thought? Perhaps Brezhnevites might, but both Maoists and 'Hoxhaists' consider him a lackey of Soviet social-imperialism. It's already known that the revisionists distributed Trotskyist literature after Stalin and Mao's deaths to provide 'criticism of Stalin.' If he praised Trotsky over Stalin, it's only further proof of how Marxism-Leninism degenerated under his rule. Like some sort of degenerated workers' state...

I like how there's this weird aura around Castro and Che where nearly every tendency wants them to belong to them, like the Trots who insist Che was on their side since they found History of the Russian Revolution in his bedroom after he died or something.

I say keep them. I'll take Stalin over those two any day.

[CatsAttack]

You forgot the source part for your claim about Castro.
For all I know your claim is just as much bullshit.

Yeah, cause Castro could not possibly have said this right? But we all know Che was sent by the soviets to Angola as their own personal Christopher Columbus as part of their scramble for Africa. And Trotsky was obviously a lobbyist for American Big Oil, i mean, a right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist said he was, so he must be.

Trotsky, who Bertold Brecht agreed to be the greatest writer in Europe at the time, was surly less intelligent than the bumpkin head-scratcher who had issues stressing syllables in conversational speech.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Every single post you make is filled with bullshit. You post lies, numerous lies in every single post you make. I can't believe you havent been banned yet.

The soviets sent Che to Angola? You have a brain the size of a peanut.

How do I put a user on ignore?


Go to your User CP and scroll down to Ignore List and add the User whom you wish to ignore. Everytime you come across a post of their's, it will be hidden but you have the option to click it to view it.

[crazyirish93]

Yeah, cause Castro could not possibly have said this right? But we all know Che was sent by the soviets to Angola as their own personal Christopher Columbus as part of their scramble for Africa. And Trotsky was obviously a lobbyist for American Big Oil, i mean, a right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist said he was, so he must be.

Trotsky, who Bertold Brecht agreed to be the greatest writer in Europe at the time, was surly less intelligent than the bumpkin head-scratcher who had issues stressing syllables in conversational speech.
You still have not provided a source for your supposed quote of castro it would be nice to get it at some stage...

[Hit The North]

You forgot the source part for your claim about Castro.
For all I know your claim is just as much bullshit.


Yeah, cause Castro could not possibly have said this right?

Sadly, Judas, you have not yet realised that CackAttack is above having to provide textual evidence for his claims. Grubbing around for quotations is for lesser people. When you are dealing with a genius like CA they just pull it out of their arse and expect us to mistake their shit for gold.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yeah, cause Castro could not possibly have said this right? But we all know Che was sent by the soviets to Angola as their own personal Christopher Columbus as part of their scramble for Africa. And Trotsky was obviously a lobbyist for American Big Oil, i mean, a right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist said he was, so he must be.

Trotsky, who Bertold Brecht agreed to be the greatest writer in Europe at the time, was surly less intelligent than the bumpkin head-scratcher who had issues stressing syllables in conversational speech.

I didn't say that he couldn't have said that. I said I want the quote of him saying that.
I don't think all these other things nor do I defend what YABM was saying so your rant is pretty worthless.

[Geiseric]

Hey it's in my post. it's at the bottom of it, I specifically edited it so you bumpkins could see it. Castro was just as much of a Stalinist as Stalin though for a long time, he only recently started allowing homosexuality go unpunished for example. At least Castro oppressed and nearly castrated the catholic church in cuba, as opposed to Stalin.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o93a-JLmwpo/SViy9yTa_FI/AAAAAAAAAEE/Z1nsAZJBnA4/s320/stalin-as-saint.jpg#Joseph%20Stalin%20and%20Blessed%20Matron a%20of%20Moscow

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Hey it's in my post. it's at the bottom of it, I specifically edited it so you bumpkins could see it. Castro was just as much of a Stalinist as Stalin though for a long time, he only recently started allowing homosexuality go unpunished for example.

In fact, Castro doesn't allow or forbid anything at his own will, Cuba is not a monarchy. And homosexuals were "withdrawn" from Culture and Educational camps until the Constitution of 76 (which doesn't make it a less repulsive policy).

Cuba holds a parade for diversity since 2007.

All of that being said, it doesn't mean there is no homophobia in Cuba, it just means that your comment is wrong.

[Geiseric]

Castro called homosexuality a "bourgeois illness" or something along those lines. And he had very much power centralized within him and his peers, which doesn't take a social analyst to realize.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Hey it's in my post. it's at the bottom of it, I specifically edited it so you bumpkins could see it. Castro was just as much of a Stalinist as Stalin though for a long time, he only recently started allowing homosexuality go unpunished for example. At least Castro oppressed and nearly castrated the catholic church in cuba, as opposed to Stalin.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o93a-JLmwpo/SViy9yTa_FI/AAAAAAAAAEE/Z1nsAZJBnA4/s320/stalin-as-saint.jpg#Joseph%20Stalin%20and%20Blessed%20Matron a%20of%20Moscow

Come look at Castro oppressing the catholic church guys:

fEieHo6xWEg

Damn, he oppressed them hard.

[Geiseric]

Come look at Castro oppressing the catholic church guys:

fEieHo6xWEg

Damn, he oppressed them hard.

Only about 5% of cuba goes to mass, he did something right. 60% of them claim to be catholic but they don't go to church. Most cubans actually do west african inspired religious traditions.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Only about 5% of cuba goes to mass, he did something right. 60% of them claim to be catholic but they don't go to church. Most cubans actually do west african inspired religious traditions.

Which is about the same as a lot of west-european countries. So nothing too special, although I guess it's something.

My point being is that you say he was oppressing the church, while he is basically while at the same time shaking hands with the leader of said church.
Which I find somewhat contradictory, to be honest.

[Bostana]

Every single post you make is filled with bullshit. You post lies, numerous lies in every single post you make. I can't believe you havent been banned yet.

The soviets sent Che to Angola? You have a brain the size of a peanut.

How do I put a user on ignore?

This is.... this post is idiotic. All you did was insult him, if you don't agree with his statement than argue and present evidence for your side.
Don't act like a six year old. Grow up and then post again


What is this supposed to even mean. Can you keep your lame one liners out of the learning thread please.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/872/3da/b47/resized/foghorn-leghorn-meme-generator-its-a-joke-son-a-joke-712f6e.jpg?1312502024.jpg

[Delenda Carthago]

The important thing is, why should an actual Marxist-Leninist give a damn what Castro thought? Perhaps Brezhnevites might, but both Maoists and 'Hoxhaists' consider him a lackey of Soviet social-imperialism. It's already known that the revisionists distributed Trotskyist literature after Stalin and Mao's deaths to provide 'criticism of Stalin.' If he praised Trotsky over Stalin, it's only further proof of how Marxism-Leninism degenerated under his rule. Like some sort of degenerated workers' state...

I like how there's this weird aura around Castro and Che where nearly every tendency wants them to belong to them, like the Trots who insist Che was on their side since they found History of the Russian Revolution in his bedroom after he died or something.

I say keep them. I'll take Stalin over those two any day.
It took 2 pages in this piece of shit forum for someone to point the obvious: Castro never had anything to do with Stalin, EVER, because when the cuban revolution won, the "de-stalinisation" from the revisionists had already happened in USSR. And he followed, unfortunatly, just fine that socialdemocratic line.

Just count the morons that felt the need to answer on a subject they knew nothing about, claiming that he never said it before to not mess his relationship with USSR.

[Geiseric]

Castro for a long time in a historical context spoke very favorably of Stalin, and did imprison many other revolutionary groups post revolution given COMINFORM's orientation. Che did release a bunch of Trotskyists who were imprisoned out of basic equitable morals, which may of not sat well with other people.

All things aside Fidel did not really like Khrushchev too much given the Cuban missile crisis's outcome. Che visited Stalin's grave and said he was "our eternal leader" when he was trying to obtain weapons for Cuba, before that whole thing.

Fidel and Che are politicians so they often say things which don't really matter in order to raise public opinion towards countries they're trying to deal with, at the same time Che was seen marching with Malcolm X during the civil rights movement, so you have to look at everything in context.

[Fred]

How to organize, left-unity, programme, democracy. the crisis etc.
History is important in analysis, but having a correct stance on Trotsky won't suddenly bring about a revolution.

Having a correct stance on anything won't suddenly bring about a revolution. Having a revolutionary program is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making revolution. So the Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin discussion matters, because it reflects larger critical programmatic disputes on the left. All the unity mongering or dismissing of the old left or of old struggles goes in the wrong direction because it obfuscates that central issues. That Castro, in his dying days deigns to give Trotsky credit is mildly interesting (if it is true) but I doubt that it is very important. Hell, most of the currents in the world that call themselves Trotskyist are merely left-talking reformists or centrists (at best). The key elements of Trotskyism are:

1. Revolutionary Internationalism
2. Absolute insistence on the political independence of the working class -- this means absolutely no political support to pop front governments or bourgeois parties
3. Defense of the deformed workers' states

I doubt that Castro meaningfully supports points one and two.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

He posts bullshit in every post. Casually claimed Trotsky received 8 million dollars from oil companies while in exile. When called out, he cited an obscure book by some anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. He causally posts this kind of shit in all his posts.


Yeah, cause Castro could not possibly have said this right? But we all know Che was sent by the soviets to Angola as their own personal Christopher Columbus as part of their scramble for Africa. And Trotsky was obviously a lobbyist for American Big Oil, i mean, a right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist said he was, so he must be.

Trotsky, who Bertold Brecht agreed to be the greatest writer in Europe at the time, was surly less intelligent than the bumpkin head-scratcher who had issues stressing syllables in conversational speech.

I agree that those claims are clearly absurd, but I'm not going to just insult people who make them. It's childish. Yeah Stalinist and Maoist critiques of Trotsky may be incredibly stupid but the person making them may be misinformed, naive, etc. You certainly don't make yourself look any better or more correct by just calling someone a moron.

We also still dont know where this quote about Trotsky came from!

[3dward]

The thing with Trotsky it has to do with the influence of the Soviet Union over my country for over 30 years. The Cuban Marxist theory and praxis has been strongly rooted on the Soviet Marxist-Leninism, which focus mainly on the traditional Leninist approach to the Marxism. Trotsky didn´t agreed with Lenin in many aspects so this classified him as an outsider in the USSR. Luckily, this is beginning to change in my country, as Trotsky´s thinking is being take into consideration. I personally disagree with Trotsky in many aspects, but recognize him as a very talented revolutionary. So does Fidel.
On the other hand, Cuba is going through a period of changes in many aspects, including the Marxist theory and practice. This doesn´t means the disappearance of USSR ideology influence, but the recovery of the best of it. Trotsky is a part of that ideology too.

The quote came from the book "100 hours with Fidel" by Ignacio Ramonet. This book is also known as "My life". Check a review here:
xxx.socialistworld.net/doc/3077
replace the x´s with w´s
I ´ve read it by the way. I´m cuban and this book... well i will just said that its highly controversial...

[Hit The North]

It took 2 pages in this piece of shit forum for someone to point the obvious: Castro never had anything to do with Stalin, EVER, because when the cuban revolution won, the "de-stalinisation" from the revisionists had already happened in USSR. And he followed, unfortunatly, just fine that socialdemocratic line.



The argument doesn't depend on Castro having anything to do with Stalin; but the fact that Cuba relied economically on Soviet aid and that, even after deStalinisation, Trotsky remained un-rehabilitated and his name was a by-word for treachery in the official Communist movement.

Btw, if you think this is such a "piece of shit forum" why do you bother posting on it?

[Geiseric]

I agree that those claims are clearly absurd, but I'm not going to just insult people who make them. It's childish. Yeah Stalinist and Maoist critiques of Trotsky may be incredibly stupid but the person making them may be misinformed, naive, etc. You certainly don't make yourself look any better or more correct by just calling someone a moron.

We also still dont know where this quote about Trotsky came from!

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3077

ctrl +f and search for trotsky, the quote is in that link from Castro.

Another quote from fidel I just found on Marxists.org

"I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.

I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.

I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.

I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.

During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.

I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.

I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law.

Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes.

Since we are discussing this topic, I must tell you that I have never discussed it with any journalist (or on any other occasion, he added).

The things I mentioned are against principles and doctrine; they are even contrary to political wisdom. Although it is true that there was a period of one year and nine months from September 1939 to June 1941 during which the USSR could have rearmed itself, Hitler was the one who got stronger.

If Hitler had declared war on the USSR in 1939, the destruction would have been less than the destruction caused in 1941, and he would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon Bonaparte. With the people's participation in an irregular war, the USSR would have defeated Hitler.

Finally, Stalin's character, his terrible distrust of everything, made him commit several other mistakes: one of them was falling in the trap of German intrigue and conducting a terrible, bloody purge of the armed forces and practically beheading the Soviet Army on the eve of war."

[DaringMehring]

Castro is a populist and a progressive but not a communist of the Lenin/Third International variety. -- obvious. That doesn't mean he is terrible... what Cuba has managed to achieve despite the Imperialist blockade and aggression proves that. But, sociologically, Cuba is not socialist, nor does it appear to be moving in that direction.

Trotsky was a classical Marxist, one of the last major figures of that type, and an intellectual of higher quality than Stalin. -- obvious. However, neither being a classical Marxist nor an intellectual, necessarily makes one's politics correct. But history has basically proved that they were, at least from the standpoint that Stalinism and all its offshoots have not led to world socialism, but rather to the defeat of the last big wave of the world socialist movement.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Trotsky question is the most significant question in the modern socialist movement.

Trotsky contributed immensely to Leninist theory, and his work discusses questions that are immensely important to the modern Leninist - the permanent revolution, capitalism as a global mode of production, the united front, the transitional programme etc. etc. However, "the Trotsky question", as presented in this thread, has preciously little to do with those questions. Whether Trotsky was "more intelligent and more capable" than Stalin is irrelevant. Trotsky's personality, in general, is irrelevant. What is relevant is Trotskyist theory and the extent to which it has been vindicated by nearly a century of revolutionary history.

And, assuming that the claim in the opening post is true, and that Castro did indeed praise Trotsky, what does that mean? Little, at least little that is positive. As with all historical figures, any idiot can praise Trotsky, and indeed many idiots do, usually because they consider Trotsky to have been a liberal "alternative" to "Stalin". Castro is obviously not a Trotskyist, except perhaps the sort of "unconscious Trotskyist", in the terminology of certain centrist Trotskyist groups, who only differs from the "Stalinists" in being critical of Soviet policy from time to time. I highly doubt that Castro will push for greater proletarian democracy in Cuba, or the further development of the command economy. More likely than not, sporadic praise of Trotsky will be used to cover the Cuban retreat from the Soviet model.

Are we so demoralised that we wag our tails every time someone speaks positively of Trotsky?


Every single post you make is filled with bullshit. You post lies, numerous lies in every single post you make. I can't believe you havent been banned yet.

The soviets sent Che to Angola? You have a brain the size of a peanut.

How do I put a user on ignore?

Hopefully, if you continue to insult users in nearly every post, while contributing very little to the site, the rest of the users will put you on a collective "ignore" by banning you.

[Sea]

The thread degenerated quickly.Quite clearly it is a degenerated worker's thread.

[hatzel]

Quite clearly it is a degenerated worker's thread.

Yeah well done for getting the joke...

@CatsAttack: what is your intention with this thread? I mean it's quite clear from your posts here that it's not just some neutral question, you've got some kind of axe to grind. Would you mind filling us in as to what exactly you're trying to communicate here?

[Luís Henrique]

He says Trotsky was obviously more capable than stalin, and obviously more intelligent.

So, why didn't he say so during his 50 year reign of tyranny? why didnt he allow his book publishers to print his works? why did his offical history books continue the stalinist lies?

Because the tyrant isn't free to do whatever he wants, either. No longer being a head of State might have a huge impact on people's ideas and opinions, and even on their reasoning.

Luís Henrique

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, if I recall correctly, Trotsky was one of the few that were not rehabilitated during the destalinisation period after 1956. The USSR and Cuba being so closely linked together economically also had political implications. I assume this also meant not supporting political-enemies, dead or alive of the USSR.
Why now and not immediately after the fall of the wall? Who knows, maybe he still believed Trotsky wasn't for that time.

I personally don't think the question is all that relevant and I don't know if Trotsky was superior.
For all it's worth, the position on Trotsky is least of the problems the left should have with Cuba.

I don't like that you say "Cuba". We as Marxists should have a problem with the way the "Cuban Revolution" was executed, not the State and socialist system that logically resulted from these incorrect revolutionary strategies.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hey it's in my post. it's at the bottom of it, I specifically edited it so you bumpkins could see it. Castro was just as much of a Stalinist as Stalin though for a long time, he only recently started allowing homosexuality go unpunished for example. At least Castro oppressed and nearly castrated the catholic church in cuba, as opposed to Stalin.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o93a-JLmwpo/SViy9yTa_FI/AAAAAAAAAEE/Z1nsAZJBnA4/s320/stalin-as-saint.jpg#Joseph%20Stalin%20and%20Blessed%20Matron a%20of%20Moscow

What kind of shampoo did Stalin use? Tell me more, tell me more!

[Brutus]

If Castro is such a Trotsky fan, why did he invite Ramon Mercador into Cuba with open arms?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Castro is a populist and a progressive but not a communist of the Lenin/Third International variety. -- obvious. That doesn't mean he is terrible... what Cuba has managed to achieve despite the Imperialist blockade and aggression proves that. But, sociologically, Cuba is not socialist, nor does it appear to be moving in that direction.

Trotsky was a classical Marxist, one of the last major figures of that type, and an intellectual of higher quality than Stalin. -- obvious. However, neither being a classical Marxist nor an intellectual, necessarily makes one's politics correct. But history has basically proved that they were, at least from the standpoint that Stalinism and all its offshoots have not led to world socialism, but rather to the defeat of the last big wave of the world socialist movement.

It's ridiculous to say that the 4th international opposition was first of all 'Classical Marxist' and secondly correct in politics. Why do I say this? Because I am convinced that the 4th international was simply an attempt by Trotsky not to build an independent workers' international, but to merely be an ideological competitor to the 3rd international which had no more to do with worker politics but every thing to do with global state politics (naturally, under the control of left wing radical bureaucrats). The correct position of a new Workers' International would have been class independence and neutrality on socialist State issues. Trotsky merely wanted to get his foot in in the race for the control of the soviet union because he seems to have been of the idealistic convictions that Stalin the 'bad guy' was to blame for the degeneration of workers power in the USSR, instead of the material conditions of Russia. In the end, Trotsky comes off as a political opportunist who indeed did have some contributions to the Marxist thought (although not very original), yet certainly no soldier for the independent cause of the Proletariat.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The Trotsky question is the most significant question in the modern socialist movement.

Keep your modern socialist movement, I'll stick with the worker movement and communist theory struggle.

[crazyirish93]

For some reason catsattack reminds me a lot of daft punk with his/hers trotsky worshiping sorry for going off topic whatever the topic of this thread is..

[Geiseric]

If Castro is such a Trotsky fan, why did he invite Ramon Mercador into Cuba with open arms?

Soviet political pressure maybe?

[cyu]

If Fidel was an anti-Trot, clearly he was converted by my brilliant posts on revleft. Oh wait, I'm not a Trot. I mean clearly he was converted by the brilliant posts by this guy below ;)

http://www.djmrp.com/animated_down_arrow.gif

[Leo]

I find it a bit absurd to discuss Castro's opinions on Trotsky. Certainly, Trotsky was a figure of much greater historical significance compared to Castro, as the October Revolution is of much greater historical significance compared to Castro's democratic coup d'etat.

To be completely honest, how he describes the former US President Jimmy Carter as a “man of integrity”; accredits Charles De Gaulle with saving France, “its traditions, its national pride, the French defiance; how a minister in Franco’s fascist government in Spain, is, in Castro’s opinion, “an intelligent, shrewd Galician”; how praises President Lula, in Brazil as “a tenacious and fraternal fighter for the rights of labour and the Left, and a friend of our people" are all far more interesting.

Of course a respectable bourgeois politician has to praise other respectible bourgeois figures in an autobiography. Stalin is no longer the respectable bourgeois figure he used to be, so Castro must have felt the need to distance himself from Stalin's legacy by mildly praising his most famous opponent in a rather meaningless way, however how he praises Carter, De Gaulle, Lula and a fascist is far more telling of what he's really doing, and what really is.