Trotsky/Lenin vs. Stalin

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I've just finished watching a lecture by Alan Woods. He is, as far as I understand, a Leninist or a Trotskyist or both, but basically he thinks both of these historical figures were correct in what they said and did and he is a vicious anti-Stalinist. He argues that Stalinist created all sort of lies and myths about Trotsky and Lenin.

And I find this position rather confusing, because all the time in Revleft and elsewhere I hear Stalinists say that Stalin was this glorious comrade that implemented perfectly the doctrines of Marxist-Leninism. In essence, Stalin simply did what Marx and Lenin argued must be done.

So what were these lies and myths about Lenin and Trotsky that Stalinists created? Generally, where lies this difference in perception? How do Stalinists justify ridding the party of old Leninist elements if they claim to be upholders of Leninism?

Generally, it would be perfect if some knowledgeable members of both camps would state their positions or recommend some specific readings on the subject.

[Sinister Intents]

This could become a sectarian shitfest quickly... I'm paranoid thisll become a tendency war. Also I like Lenin and Trotsky, and I detest Stalin. I'll add more to this post later.
Ehhh, never mind it's not worth it but I'll jump in as the troll trolls

[Remus Bleys]

You aren't even trying to troll now. It's painfully obvious. 0/10.

[PhoenixAsh]

*grabs popcorn*

In the left corner Stalin:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm

In the right corner Trotksy:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm

And for full measure Emma Goldman as your ref:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1938/trotsky-protests.htm


No blows underneath the belt. Lets keep it a clean fight. Although...we have precious little Stalinists here.

Lets rumble :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I always admired Luxemburg's ability to not only write articles years after her death but also be Emma Goldman.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You aren't even trying to troll now. It's painfully obvious. 0/10.

Well, exactly, I am not trying, because I am not doing so. I am well aware that this will turn in some sectarian fighting in one way or another, but these are exactly the sort of threads where I, personally, have learnt most in Revleft.

That's a genuine question, really - I keep hearing these conflicting stories that I mentioned in the opening post and I don't have sufficient knowledge as of yet to work them out. So I am learning by reading and by asking questions. I don't really know what else to add.

[PhoenixAsh]

I always admired Luxemburg's ability to not only write articles years after her death but also be Emma Goldman.

very well...good call. You are right...busy with two things at once. Fair is fair though...I will edit..

[mindsword]

My theory is that stalin went crazy because of world war 2 or that world war 2 gave stalin the possibility to take power in a desperate time. he's kind of the rogue colonel in apocalypse now that fucks everything up.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, exactly, I am not trying, because I am not doing so. I am well aware that this will turn in some sectarian fighting in one way or another, but these are exactly the sort of threads where I, personally, have learnt most in Revleft.

Well you're probably goint to get infracted for trying to start a tendency war. It'll be well deserved. I think tendency wars are fucking annoying sectarian infighting, and they're counter intuitive. We don't need to make the RevLeft atmosphere more hostile. I'd infract you if I was an admin. Perhaps ban you if you turn out to be just a troll.

[PhoenixAsh]

this is what you can expect of this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-trotsky-loathed-t158522/index2.html?highlight=Trotskyism+Stalinism

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well you're probably goint to get infracted for trying to start a tendency war. It'll be well deserved. I think tendency wars are fucking annoying sectarian infighting, and they're counter intuitive. We don't need to make the RevLeft atmosphere more hostile. I'd infract you if I was an admin. Perhaps ban you if you turn out to be just a troll.

Jesus, relax dude. People fight here viciously over all sort of things, like I've seen threads that would go crazy over DoPT and other theoretical things. When I ask a question I am always aware that different tendencies will have different answers and there will be a possibility of some fighting getting out of it. Should I not ask these questions then? Well, I will take a risk this time.

Anyway, then someone could drop me a PM with their view if it can't be discussed openly...

[Sinister Intents]

Jesus, relax dude. People fight here viciously over all sort of things, like I've seen threads that would go crazy over DoPT and other theoretical things. When I ask a question I am always aware that different tendencies will have different answers and there will be a possibility of some fighting getting out of it. Should I not ask these questions then? Well, I will take a risk this time.

Anyway, then someone could drop me a PM with their view if it can't be discussed openly...

I am relaxed, and I'm not trying to seem hostile or anything of that nature. Also don't call me dude lol, I don't like that :P but that doesn't matter. I've seen threads go absolutely crazy and become a sectarian clusterfuck as well. They're fun, but they're counterintuitive, and make the forum a more hostile place, so yes PMing would probably be best. As an anarchist I don't really care about this debate at all. Also you can ask the questions, just things like this one should be asked to specific people IMHO.

[RedWorker]

Honestly I don't see much wrong here, he just looks like he genuinely wants to learn about something, and this is the Learning forum. Accusing him of a "troll" and even threatening to ban him for making such a post seems quite rude...

[Sinister Intents]

Honestly I don't see much wrong here, he just looks like he genuinely wants to learn about something, and this is the Learning forum. Accusing him of a "troll" and even threatening to ban him for making such a post seems quite rude...

If it's an honest question it's alright, but if they're only a troll and trying to be an asshole they should be banned. I don't think Leftist is a troll, for I haven't seen any trollish behavior from them. Plus the learning forum has stricter rules now that I remember, so maybe it can be discussed peacefully... Who knows, we'll find out.

[Art Vandelay]

If it's an honest question it's alright, but if they're only a troll and trying to be an asshole they should be banned. I don't think Leftist is a troll, for I haven't seen any trollish behavior from them. Plus the learning forum has stricter rules now that I remember, so maybe it can be discussed peacefully... Who knows, we'll find out.

Then don't respond with stuff like this:


This could become a sectarian shitfest quickly... I'm paranoid thisll become a tendency war. Also I like Lenin and Trotsky, and I detest Stalin. I'll add more to this post later.
Ehhh, never mind it's not worth it but I'll jump in as the troll trolls


Well you're probably goint to get infracted for trying to start a tendency war. It'll be well deserved. I think tendency wars are fucking annoying sectarian infighting, and they're counter intuitive. We don't need to make the RevLeft atmosphere more hostile. I'd infract you if I was an admin. Perhaps ban you if you turn out to be just a troll.

...since it does nothing to foster a peaceful environment for discussion and quite frankly it's only been the responses to this thread that seem like trolling to me. If you don't have content to post, then don't post.

---

OP, perhaps it would be best for you to read a few different materials on the matter and you can decide for yourself. While taking into account some of the opinions expressed on revleft can be beneficial for someone new to radical politics, it isn't a substitution for delving into the source material yourself.

From the Trotskyist perspective:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

From the Stalinist perspective:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm

---

There is a description Isaac Deutscher makes near the end of Volume 2 of his biography of Trotsky. It is quite well written and gets to the heart of the matter, if I remember correctly. I've been trying to find my copy of the book in my apartment, but can only seem to find volume 1&3, so I'm thinking I probably lent it out to a comrade. If I can track it down (doesn't seem to be on Marxists.org) than I'll come back and edit my post to include the quote.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And I find this position rather confusing, because all the time in Revleft and elsewhere I hear Stalinists say that Stalin was this glorious comrade that implemented perfectly the doctrines of Marxist-Leninism. In essence, Stalin simply did what Marx and Lenin argued must be done.Just a point of clarification, "Marxist-Leninism" doesn't mean supporting Marxism and Leninism generally, it's a specific tendency that non-ML's generally just call "Stalinism". So, yes, Stalin upheld Marxist-Leninism pretty well. But many on the left, myself included, reject these politics.

In my view, Stalin, Stalinism, are not "evil" but are the result of a revolution that suceeded politically and militarily but hit major impasses and problems - most significantly, isolation. Stalinism did not set out to distort socialism or the Bolshevik mission specifically or the Revolution generally, but with socialism failing I think they took an alternative path that lead decisivly away from worker's power and socialism. Since they still claimed to be acting in the name of the Revolution, they had to cover the gap between Bolshevik/Socialist theory and USSR practice... this is where the gradual re-writing history, demanding ideological uniforimity, etc become necissary.

Like others, I'm not interested in a tendency war, so I will leave it at that and re-iterate that this is more or less how I see it and other people obviously have different views of it if they do support Stalin or the USSR as a form of socialism.

[Geiseric]

Peoples "view" on stalin isnt what I really care about. What I care about Is that the same issues can come up if a revolution breaks out in one or more countries if we don't learn about the past. The numbers are in, making it blissful ignorance not to recognize the truth about Stalinism.

[Comrade Jacob]

>Looks at title
>"Here we go again motherfucker!!!" -Slipknot

[Remus Bleys]

>Looks at title
>"Here we go again motherfucker!!!" -Slipknot

>greentext
>edgy music

[Comrade Jacob]

>greentext
>edgy music

Tbh, It's my friend that likes slipknot, I think they are too angst.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, exactly, I am not trying, because I am not doing so. I am well aware that this will turn in some sectarian fighting in one way or another, but these are exactly the sort of threads where I, personally, have learnt most in Revleft.

That's a genuine question, really - I keep hearing these conflicting stories that I mentioned in the opening post and I don't have sufficient knowledge as of yet to work them out. So I am learning by reading and by asking questions. I don't really know what else to add.

Yeah the problem is that every thread like this ends up as like 50 pages of a handful of Stalin-lovers and Trotskyists arguing back and forth aimlessly, recycling the same points and getting nowhere. Just search "Trotsky" and "Stalin" and you will see. It gets ugly.

TBH there are probably better sources of information on this than people's opinions in an online forum, especially because this is a particularly controversial point which people have invested too much emotion into.


My theory is that stalin went crazy because of world war 2 or that world war 2 gave stalin the possibility to take power in a desperate time. he's kind of the rogue colonel in apocalypse now that fucks everything up.

the horror ... the horror

Just to clarify though - Stalin took power well before WW2 and most of the Soviet citizens who died under his rule died before the war. What WW2 gave Stalin was the opportunity to push for the incorporation of Eastern Europe into a geopolitical bloc with the USSR. Also, I don't think he was ever crazy. He was unsympathetic, cruel and brutally authoritarian, but he was not "crazy".

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I find it very weird that people would invest so much emotion into some historical figures...

Since nobody is willing to provide their take on this, apart from a couple of people in page 1, let me ask this more specific question:

Stalin supporters generally uphold Lenin as a great revolutionary, as well as Stalin, at least that's my experience. Now I've heard several times that Stalin did purge the party of old Leninists and I've heard a comment/joke that if Lenin was alive under Stalin, he would have been imprisoned or whatnot. So I just have a hard time understanding how can someone uphold Lenin and support someone who purged the party of Leninists. Or were these Leninists not really Lenininsts? Or did some historical circumstances (USSR's isolation?) necessitated such action by Stalin?

I will go through the links at some point as I couldn't do it up until now as I was working with my thesis.

[Brutus]

I find it very weird that people would invest so much emotion into some historical figures...

Since nobody is willing to provide their take on this, apart from a couple of people in page 1, let me ask this more specific question:

Stalin supporters generally uphold Lenin as a great revolutionary, as well as Stalin, at least that's my experience. Now I've heard several times that Stalin did purge the party of old Leninists and I've heard a comment/joke that if Lenin was alive under Stalin, he would have been imprisoned or whatnot. So I just have a hard time understanding how can someone uphold Lenin and support someone who purged the party of Leninists. Or were these Leninists not really Lenininsts? Or did some historical circumstances (USSR's isolation?) necessitated such action by Stalin?

I will go through the links at some point as I couldn't do it up until now as I was working with my thesis.

They were counter-revolutionary collaborators with fascist-imperialist powers and trotsky, or something like that.

[Dialectical Wizard]

The point is not primarily to emphasize how much "softer," "more human," the early Bolsheviks were. One should in no way cover up the harshness of their rule, the point is elsewhere: precisely when they resorted to terror (and they often did it, openly calling the beast by its name, "Red Terror"), this terror was of a different type in comparison with the Stalinist terror. If you really study the rule of the Soviet Union under Stalin closely you can see how truly perverse it really was. The paranoiac ideology of Stalinism; scheming, plotting and the whole secretive atmosphere of it. Sergei Eisenstein perfectly saw the shift in the status of political violence from the Leninist emancipatory violence in October: Ten Days That Shook the World to the Stalinist obscene underside of the law, which is magnificently allegorized in Ivan the Terrible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Stalin supporters generally uphold Lenin as a great revolutionary, as well as Stalin, at least that's my experience. Now I've heard several times that Stalin did purge the party of old Leninists and I've heard a comment/joke that if Lenin was alive under Stalin, he would have been imprisoned or whatnot. So I just have a hard time understanding how can someone uphold Lenin and support someone who purged the party of Leninists. Or were these Leninists not really Lenininsts? Or did some historical circumstances (USSR's isolation?) necessitated such action by Stalin?

I think Marx has a quote about how after big struggles subside and the ruling order set and confident again, the ruling class turns the populist or militiant or revolutionary figures they had villianized during the upheval into harmless caricatures of themselves. US Liberals today might be divided on Malcolm X, for example, but even with him there's been an effort to take the last year of his life and create a narritive (not of his growing action-oriented and internationally-minded politics of that time) but of him "reforming" his views towards liberal race-tolerance. Marx himself is presented as an historically important critical economist or an anarchonistic philosopher in US academia... defanged of his class-orientation and revolutionary views.

In Russia however, the Revolution initially suceeded but then came apart and went in a different trajectory. So like the Mexican government used the imagry of Revolution and populist figures like Zapata, Russia created a cult of personality around Lenin as a way to frame him in a way that justified their rule. At least two aspects of this included claiming the "rightful" legacy of the revolutionary-era Bolsheviks against other political trends and also re-framing the revolution in heroic and "great-man" terms rather than in materialist and class-based terms. The cult of personality makes Lenin a patriarch, father of the revolution, mummified saint, giant man made of stone pointing the way forward for the helpless masses in statues and posters... not as a real figure who played a notable subjective role in a larger insurrection of workers and soliders and pesants.

Also stalin purged many Bolsheviks who had been part of the revolution, but nobody would have called themselves a "Leninist" to my knowledge, they would have just called themselves Bolsheviks or a specific faction of the Bolsheviks, if anything. So the terms can be confusing and they are contested.

[Red Economist]

Stalin supporters generally uphold Lenin as a great revolutionary, as well as Stalin, at least that's my experience. Now I've heard several times that Stalin did purge the party of old Leninists and I've heard a comment/joke that if Lenin was alive under Stalin, he would have been imprisoned or whatnot. So I just have a hard time understanding how can someone uphold Lenin and support someone who purged the party of Leninists. Or were these Leninists not really Lenininsts? Or did some historical circumstances (USSR's isolation?) necessitated such action by Stalin?Non-Stalinist here, but I'll have a go. The 'argument' over the purges would involve a reference to the theory of the "aggravation of the class struggle under socialism" in which the 'counter-revolutionaries' of the (deposed) ruling class intensify their efforts to resist Soviet rule, so Stalin argued that the state would only 'wither away' as the result of it's expansion throughout society and the distinction between the state and society disappearing because the state becomes everything in society. Classes would only disappear by the intensification of the class struggle under socialism.

[yeah. seriously. that might not be a perfect description, but it's that kind of mixture of dialectics and crazy. :(]

Added to this was a war scare in 1927 (don't really know anything about that) and everyone suddenly get's very jumpy and paranoid as the whole 'capitalist world' is obviously out to destroy the soviet union as they have a class interest to do so.
Within the Soviet Union, the 'problem' is that the 'class enemy' is not identified by purely by objective factors (e.g. income level, property etc.) but by 'ideology' or 'false consciousness'. So anyone who says 'no' to the party or state becomes a counter-revolutionary. In addition, the nature of revolutionary terror was that it was never a question of evidence of guilt in a court of law but the suspicion of guilt in a police state. The Soviet Union had a pecular legal system which is best described as "rule by law" not "rule of law" because it was taken for granted that the law had a class bias and political interpretation. In order words, whole 'classes' of people were guilty until proven innocent, by virtue of their 'class'.... which meant just about anything.



Martin Latsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Latsis), chief of the Ukrainian Cheka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka) explained: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) he belongs, what is his background, his education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education), his profession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession). These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror)."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_law#cite_note-State-5)The purpose of public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime - that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPSU) - but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_propaganda) for the instruction of the citizenry. Defense lawyers, who had to be party members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPSU), were required to take their client's guilt for granted..."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_law#cite_note-Pipes-1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_law#Early_Soviet_law


The history of this is that the state set targets for the number of people to be arrested based on the presumption of 'class' guilt. the local NKVD competed against one another to fulfil their targets and did so through fabricating evidence, using anything close to a confession or denunciation,asserting people for minor misdemeanors (or which they're were many new laws on the statue book e.g. not turning up to work on time was 'sabotage') or quite literally pulling people off the street. If they (that's the NKVD) got too many people, there were 'sabateours' and shot. If they got too few people, they were too 'liberal' and shot. Among with any other potential reason.

In other words- this is crazy, f**ked up sh*t. Historians are still trying to figure out what really went on and why, but basically it was a witch-hunt. This is how 'communists' got 'eaten alive' (for a lack of a better way of putting it) by 'the system' and it didn't really matter how high up people were- they were still a target (and Stalin was personally responsible for some of it- how much I'm not sure). Hence the "Show Trials" in the mid 30's and the purging of the inner party membership and executive (and members of the third international- as they couldn't let the "class enemy" simply escape soviet justice).

The reason 'Stalinists' idolize Lenin is because of the issue of succession and Stalin deriving legitimacy from the success of 'Lenin's' revolution as both a theorist and practitioner of Socialist Revolution. (Any Marxist worth their salt knows this 'cult of the individual' stuff is not very proletarian- but it was a question of political expediency in a nation of quasi-religious peasants, even with a supposedly atheist state).
Stalin played (very successfully) on the popular mood of grief surrounding Lenin's death which was part of a wide collective mood after a decade of war, civil war, famine, etc; it was Stalin after all who supported Embalming Lenin. Stalin capitalized on this by writing "The foundations of Leninism" (which brought the concept of 'leninism' as a distinct form of Marxism into widespread currency and official usage and gave him legitimacy as Lenin's successor (Lenin had always referred to himself as a Marxist). This is why 'Stalinist' refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists.

[But NOT all Marxist-Leninists will agree with this as they have their own set of internal disputes, I've just tried to give a rough outline].

[reedwolf]

I can't possibly add anything really usefull to this topic, but if anyone interested here's a article translated from a Marxist-leninist book called Political Dictionary (printed in 1986):

trotskyism: antileninist, antisoviet, pseudo-leftist political direction. Trotsky (1879-1940) denied the sections of the revolutionary struggle, underestimated the allies of the working class, considered the socialist revolution's victory impossible, then the construction of socialism in a country, turned against Lenin in several, highly important issues of international workers' movement and the soviet authority. The trotskyism has , in some countries, followers and organizations. The main pursuit of these [followers, organizations] is the fight against communist parties.

I'm not saying I want advocate any side (though I'd be more of a Trotskyist or ortodox Marxist myself), but it still is an interesting to see the view from the Soviets' persective. (details on the book - Title: Political Dictionary, publisher: Kossuth Publisher, year: 1986, Edition: 5. - extended edition, original language: Hungarian, translation is done [on the fly] by me)

[Rusty Shackleford]

One thing, besides some political differences, Trotsky could have turned out similar to Stalin if he were in that position. Same could go for the inverse. Neither were saints and both basically followed the line of Marx Engels and Lenin in theory a practice.

Stalin was rough around the edges, and Trotsky wasn't without burrs either.


Now... Trotskyism and Marxism Leninism are a bit different

[ashtonh]

Stalin truly did industrialize his nation, at the cost of his peoples love support and freedom. Blatant murder, false charges, the (sometimes) horrible acts of the CCCP. TBH stalin did not add much to communist theory other than socialism in one country. I am a MList and follow some of stalins points but other than that he is simply to be disregarded. Pick and choose my friend Pick and choose.