What if Trotsky was in control insted of Stalin?

[Remus Bleys]

Exactly what the title says. EDIT: I just realized it says "insted" instead of "instead." Sorry about that.
Please actually use reasoning, not just "It wouldnt have degenerated" or "It would have failed."

[BIXX]

I believe the song in your sig answers that question quite nicely.

I personally believe that it might have been slightly less authoritarian, but I can't say for sure. I'd need to do a more in depth analysis of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and the material conditions of the USSR.

However, they might have dated better durin WWII cause from what I've read/heard, Trotsky was a pretty good military strategist. I haven't heard any such claims for Stalin, but maybe he was too.

[The Idler]

Trotsky was thought to be the more authoritarian of the two prior to Stalin taking power.

[Remus Bleys]

Trotsky was thought to be the more authoritarian of the two prior to Stalin taking power. So, what, even more people get killed in the Purge? Or would less, because of Trotksy's military beaten the Nazis sooner?
And would the Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution, how would that affect anything?

[BIXX]

Trotsky was thought to be the more authoritarian of the two prior to Stalin taking power.

Huh. I'll have to read more of his (and stalin's) works myself, but that's interesting.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think there'd be a lot of significant differences for the better but I don't think it would have been perfect as some people would like to believe. Certainly there'd have been far less antisemitism. Also, anarcho-Trotskyite-liberal-fascist would probably instead be anarcho-Stalinite-liberal-fascist.

[Teacher]

Probably there would have been even more bloodshed within the Soviet Union between different political factions and especially conflicts with the peasants.

Assuming the SU survived the chaos he probably would have tried to invade Germany and the imperialists countries all would have descended on Russia. WWII instead would have been the Nip Communism At the Bud war.

Counter-factual history though.. we might as well be talking about fairies.

[Brutus]

This has been dealt with many times...
We just do not know. We can guess, we can presume, but we can't know because of te infinite possibilities.

[Remus Bleys]

This has been dealt with many times...
We just do not know. We can guess, we can presume, but we can't know because of te infinite possibilities. Of course we don't. Its just intellectual masturbation. But what's wrong with masturbation?

I'm just looking for everyone's best guess.

[helot]

I doubt much would have been different, similar policies would have been enacted or Trotsky's removal. What do you want? The great man theory of history?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The understanding of the Bolsheviks and Trotsky was that the solution for Russia's problems was the continuing revolution in Europe and elsewhere - but mainly in Germany. Long before Stalin, the revolution was in trouble and there wouldn't be too much that a different leadership could have done to prevent that, but a different path may have managed the decline differently.

Socialism in One Country, the "solution" to the problems of the revolution that emerged had a number of consaquences. If even a substitutionist "degenerated" Russia existed, but saw their hope in international working class revolution, not stabilizing and building socialism in Russia, then there may have been a chance that Russia would have oriented itself differently in terms of the Spanish Revolution or other world events, if Russia had backed the workers rather than the Popular Front Government in order to try and win support from England and France, then there might have been a sucessful worker's revolution which could re-legitimize the class as the center of "socialist power" and provide a sucsessful revolutionary push-back against fascism that might have inspired workers in other places where fascism was rising. Instead Russia backed property-rights against worker's power, sought allies in the imperial governments rather than revolutionary workers, and helped undermine the revolution which then further demoralized workers in Europe.

But it's all speculation. Most Trotskyists would probably agree that Trotsky (or a Left opposition in Russia) alone would not have made Russian socialism possible - but an opposition to the interests of the beurocracy might have kept Russia in a holding pattern a little longer and possibly long enough that changing international factors might have produced a revolution elsewhere that could pull Russia back to the path of worker's power.

[Karlorax]

Trotskyists are always talking about "Socialism in one country" as though it meant socialism in *only* one country. As though there was no effort to expand socialist power under the Stalin regime. The Soviet Union was a vast country of many nations. And by the end of World War 2, socialism or at least "people's democracy" had been exported to cover all of Eastern Europe, including eastern Germany. China had gone red too. This expansion was under an international communist movement led by large degree by Stalin. By contrast, Trotsky's track record continues to be socialism in no countries despite Trotskyist rhetoric.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As though there was no effort to expand socialist power under the Stalin regime. The Soviet Union was a vast country of many nations. And by the end of World War 2, socialism or at least "people's democracy" had been exported to cover all of Eastern Europe, including eastern Germany.Well this would just be a fundamental disagreement then. What is meant by "socialist power"? I would consider the goal of socialists to be "worker's power" in the sense of worker's self-organized in their class interests and that didn't exist in Eastern Europe, it did exist in Spain in the revolution to an extent, but the USSR backed middle class forces and allies with Imperialist powers to try and create a block against Hitler. So in the logic of "socialism in one country" socialist power actually seems to mean the expansion of the power and influence of the leaders of Russia... which it did expand after WWII, initially through cutting a deal with FDR and Churchill. Working class interests become replaced by the interests of Russia in this view and that is pretty consistantly demonstrated through most of the history of the USSR.

[Tim Cornelis]

The very notion that one man is a head of state contradicts that there is a workers' state, surely. In that case, there would not have been that much of a difference. Maybe less deadly violence post-civil war.

[G4b3n]

I imagine Trotsky would have defeated the Nazis much faster and more efficiently, mainly because he wouldn't have purged all of the Old Bolsheviks like Stalin did. He also wouldn't have hid in his office upon hearing news of a Nazi invasion. He also would have made greater effort to spark revolution in the west, whether that would have been successful or not, we will never know. All though we do know that it didn't work for Lenin when he showed up at the border of Poland, ready to liberate the Polish proletariat, and they met him with armed troops.

[G4b3n]

Trotskyists are always talking about "Socialism in one country" as though it meant socialism in *only* one country. As though there was no effort to expand socialist power under the Stalin regime. The Soviet Union was a vast country of many nations. And by the end of World War 2, socialism or at least "people's democracy" had been exported to cover all of Eastern Europe, including eastern Germany. China had gone red too. This expansion was under an international communist movement led by large degree by Stalin. By contrast, Trotsky's track record continues to be socialism in no countries despite Trotskyist rhetoric.

Well maybe if certain paranoid authoritarians didn't stab certain revolutionaries with ice picks, then maybe we might have more socialism, of the desirable sort.

[Rural Comrade]

If Trotsky came to power the New Economic Policy would play-out until all the World was under his idea of Marxism and as you can tell from the way things turned out it probably wouldn't have happened and the USSR would just be capitalist. On the Plus side all those average citizens Stalin purged would be alive.

[Human Liberation Front]

Question should be would Trotsky gradually give power back to the people paving the way for the dissolution of the state (if he had achieved his world revolution aims) or just get drunk off of power and become an oppressive ass like Stalin.

[Remus Bleys]

If Trotsky came to power the New Economic Policy would play-out until all the World was under his idea of Marxism and as you can tell from the way things turned out it probably wouldn't have happened and the USSR would just be capitalist. On the Plus side all those average citizens Stalin purged would be alive.
I was of the impression Trotsky was against the NEP.

[Rural Comrade]

Regardless the NEP allowing capitalism to stay in the USSR fits Trotsky's ideas of having the world under his ideals before going socialist.

[Bostana]

How many times has this thread appeared?

It is uncertain what would have happened because none of us here are psychic. But maybe Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" would have worked better than Stalin's "Socialism in one Country." I feel like Stalin was more bent on building an industrial super power than spreading socialism. I have no doubt Trotsky would have worked on spreading socialism better than Stalin ever did. However Trotsky was a "My way or the Highway guy" (Or at least that's how I've figured him) As we see in the rebellion in which I will not mention for the sanity of the forum.

Again we'll never know, because none of us are psychic.
(Except Brutus....That guy is a badass)

[Fourth Internationalist]

However Trotsky was a "My way or the Highway guy" (Or at least that's how I've figured him) As we see in the rebellion in which I will not mention for the sanity of the forum.

The suppression wasn't the result of a personal feeling of "OH I disagree with them so we're going to stop them."

If you really don't want to mention the rebellion, don't mention it!

[Geiseric]

Trotsky was more popular than Stalin during and before the civil war. Stalin was never actually voted in to any position, unlike trotsky who was president of the petrograd soviet, and personally led troops in its defense.

[rednordman]

I cannot but help feel that if Trotsky had of come to power instead of Stalin, he would have either been even more authoritarian and power mad than Stalin. Or he would have simply been a huge reformer and the soviet union would have basically collapsed much much sooner than it did in real life. He may have had different ideas to Stalin but that doesn't always mean they where better. Neither would be considered a messiah no matter who had power.

[TheIrrationalist]

I doubt it would have made much difference if it was Trotsky rather than Stalin in control of the USSR. I don't think that implementing the permanent revolution rather than socialism in one country theory would have made anything different, as the revolutions in Germany failed and the revolution didn't spread in Europe. It was a doomed revolution, socialism in one country guaranteed that the disaster called the Soviet Union limped into the 90's.

[Geiseric]

I doubt it would have made much difference if it was Trotsky rather than Stalin in control of the USSR. I don't think that implementing the permanent revolution rather than socialism in one country theory would have made anything different, as the revolutions in Germany failed and the revolution didn't spread in Europe. It was a doomed revolution, socialism in one country guaranteed that the disaster called the Soviet Union limped into the 90's.

Perminant revolution was an established fact by the october revolution being successful. I'm not sure if you understand what the theory states, but it was adopted nearly unanimously at one point even by Stalin, since it said that the bourgeois or petit bourgeois are classes incapible of revolutionary actions, so the working class is the only revolutionary power in the planet. It's opposed to "Stagism" which even Lenin was guilty of for a while, as was Trotsky, until he was organizing the 1905 revolution, which proved him correct.

The reason the communists in other countries didn't come to power was kind of due to the absence of a formulated, organized party to be the "vanguard" of the German, Spanish, and Italian revolution(s) which were very decentralized, which made it possible for Freikorps to isolate and execute most of the revolutionaries since soviets popped up at different times and didn't coordinate nationally.

[TheIrrationalist]

Perminant revolution was an established fact by the october revolution being successful. I'm not sure if you understand what the theory states, but it was adopted nearly unanimously at one point even by Stalin, since it said that the bourgeois or petit bourgeois are classes incapible of revolutionary actions, so the working class is the only revolutionary power in the planet. It's opposed to "Stagism" which even Lenin was guilty of for a while, as was Trotsky, until he was organizing the 1905 revolution, which proved him correct.

I admit that my knowledge of Trotsky's permanent revolution is insufficient. But my point is that as Trotsky pointed out that a revolution cannot last alone in one country, as opposed to the idea of socialism in one country, that the revolutionary state must be strengthened first internally, while constructing socialism in that country, with the failure of the revolution in Europe Trotsky would had to have accepted a position similar to SIOC to even sustain what they had achieved in Russia. Stalin's the theory of socialism in one country of course came as a reaction to the failed revolutions in Europe.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Perminant revolution was an established fact by the october revolution being successful.

Erm, no it was a part of a two stage revolution, with the bourgeois revolution taking place in 1905.

[Geiseric]

Erm, no it was a part of a two stage revolution, with the bourgeois revolution taking place in 1905.

Do you even know what happened in 1905? Something called a soviet popped up and was put down violently by the government. mensheviks are the ones who kept the two stage theory when Lenin abandoned it along with the other Bolsheviks after the April thesis came out.