Trotsky speaks (In English!)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'm sure that this footage has been shown on here more than once, but just for one more time.....

Xv--EVbmMys

This footage is from somewhere between 1937 and 1940. It was filmed in Mexico during the Show Trials in Moscow. In it, Trotsky makes his statement against the show trials in the USSR and denounces Stalin (of course).

And yes, he speaks entirely in English in this footage. For some reason that's just really cool to me. Lenin was also pretty fluent in English, but all of the audio recordings we have of him are in Russian.

[(A)]

I would have loved to see this man replace Stalin and see the results of leftist leadership in the USSR instead of Stalin's despotism. Trotsky was not just a believer is democracy but a great military leader and hard core Russian bad-ass.

I am sure there are some proponents of Stalin who would disagree with me but what is life without conflict of opinion.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I would have loved to see this man replace Stalin and see the results of leftist leadership in the USSR instead of Stalin's despotism. Trotsky was not just a believer is democracy but a great military leader and hard core Russian bad-ass.

I am sure there are some proponents of Stalin who would disagree with me but what is life without conflict of opinion.

Democracy, you say... you seem to have a rosy view of Trotsky's views. Pray tell, what about... Kronstadt?

[(A)]

I think there is a lot of different ways to view history; especially from the standpoint of a reader. Wikipedia says one thing In Defense of Marxisim says another and that's not mentioning the writings of the people who where actually there.

I have no way of knowing for fact who these people are; I have read Trotsky believed in democracy and Stalin used the power of his post to become a dictator. I just think it would be interesting to see what difference it would have made; maybe Trotsky would have been 100 times worse.

I would post a link to the page from In Defense but I don't have enough posts yet.

[Hrafn]

I have read that Trotsky was a Fascist agent, and Stalin a good candidate for Eastern Orthodox sainthood. Doesn't make it true.

[(A)]

Exactly. I have no clue if Trotsky was a good man or not. From what I have read I chose to believe he shared some of my ideals. I think that maybe the USSR would be around still if he was not ousted. Or if Lenin lived longer, or maybe if bears began to talk. Like you said its all conjecture.

[Geiseric]

Democracy, you say... you seem to have a rosy view of Trotsky's views. Pray tell, what about... Kronstadt?

You consider a military coup in a military base right above petrograd, instigated by the entente, which involved threatening bolshevik elected officials with a bullet in the head to be democratic? Like its been said numerous times, the majority of sailors at kronatadt who participated in the revolution were dead. Even in 1917 this was only a minority of the soldiers at the base, the majority through the revolution supported the SRs. Way to spread misinformation.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Democracy, you say... you seem to have a rosy view of Trotsky's views. Pray tell, what about... Kronstadt?

Some of the sailors' demands were completely unacceptable. This doesn't justify slaughtering them all of course. However-and please correct me if I'm wrong- I do believe negotiations were attempted. Maybe the matter could have been resolved in a different manner but it definitely wasn't as one-sided as you make it out to be, especially if you know they were being led by a Socialist-revolutionary, with whom the Bolshies didn't really get along at that point in time... Regardless the loss of life is lamentable and is not something to be celebrated or glorified and believe me, it truly pains me to know that the Bolsheviks have so much blood on their hands.

[Geiseric]

Some of the sailors' demands were. completely unacceptable. This doesn't justify slaughtering them all of course. However-and please correct me if I'm wrong- I do believe negotiations were attempted. Maybe the matter could have been resolved in a different manner but it definitely wasn't as one-sided as you make it out to be, especially if you know they were being led by a Socialist-revolutionary, with whom the Bolshies didn't really get along at that point in time... Regardless the loss of life is lamentable and is not something to be celebrated or glorified and believe me, it truly pains me to know that the Bolsheviks have so much blood on their hands.

If they didnt have blood on their hands they would of been annihilated. Everything up to the invasions of poland and the caucuses was more or less justified. Any attempt to slander the bolsheviks actions during the revolution ans civil war is objectively reactionary.

The entente was reaponsible for every action against the bolsheviks perpetrated by the counter revolutionary SRs and Cadets who made up most of the whites. The czarist reaction wasnt as strong as the "other socialists" past 1918, because their credibility was bankrupt.

Most attempts by the entente to get rid of the bols involved promoting other parties which would of had he slogan "soviets without bolsheviks". Petit bourgeois socialists to this day promote that counter revolutionary slogan.

[Five Year Plan]

Democracy, you say... you seem to have a rosy view of Trotsky's views. Pray tell, what about... Kronstadt?

I think that is explained pretty well here: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

Of course if a person has a liberal understanding of democracy that reduces down to the procedure of voting abstracted from the class struggle and a revolutionary anti-capitalist program, then that person will certainly not find the article persuasive.

But then that just poses the question: why would such a person consider himself a Marxist to begin with, and why would such a person not just be content with bourgeois democracy?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Some of the sailors' demands were completely unacceptable. This doesn't justify slaughtering them all of course. However-and please correct me if I'm wrong- I do believe negotiations were attempted. Maybe the matter could have been resolved in a different manner but it definitely wasn't as one-sided as you make it out to be, especially if you know they were being led by a Socialist-revolutionary, with whom the Bolshies didn't really get along at that point in time... Regardless the loss of life is lamentable and is not something to be celebrated or glorified and believe me, it truly pains me to know that the Bolsheviks have so much blood on their hands.

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with the repression of the sailors uprising. I was just pointing out that Trotsky wasn't a dove. He was responsible for plenty of violent policies, as are at times necessary. I feel a lot of liberally inclined types just like Trotsky because well, "he wasn't Stalin lol!" while constructing some rosy view about flowers and kisses if only Trotsky had been in charge.

Imagine if Trotsky had been the one to win the power struggle, and Stalin fallen from grace and eventually shot. Imagine - Stalinists today would be liberal sorts complaining about Trotsky's "terrible dictatorship", and the "permanent revolution" would be the equivalent of SiC for the Stalinists of today. Amusing.

What I mean is that a lot of people who don't really know or even much care for what Trotsky's policies were end up liking him for no other reason than that he is seen as the opposite of "repression" and "Stalin". Like the earlier poster, for example.

[Five Year Plan]

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with the repression of the sailors uprising. I was just pointing out that Trotsky wasn't a dove. He was responsible for plenty of violent policies.

So were Lenin, Mao, Hoxha, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Only somebody who who has a principled opposition to violence (we call them "pacifists") would use somebody's "responsibility for violent policies" as a grounds for criticism without delving into the context in which the violence was deployed.


Imagine if Trotsky had been the one to win the power struggle, and Stalin fallen from grace and eventually shot. Imagine - Stalinists today would be liberal sorts complaining about Trotsky's "terrible dictatorship", and the "permanent revolution" would be the equivalent of SiC for the Stalinists of today. Amusing.

The reason Trotsky lost the power struggle was precisely that material conditions in Russia had decayed to such a point that a revolutionary leadership was always going to have to fight an uphill battle to try to breathe life back into workers' revolutionary agency while accomplishing the task of defending the previous revolutionary gains in the face of imperialist threat.

[Geiseric]

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with the repression of the sailors uprising. I was just pointing out that Trotsky wasn't a dove. He was responsible for plenty of violent policies, as are at times necessary. I feel a lot of liberally inclined types just like Trotsky because well, "he wasn't Stalin lol!" while constructing some rosy view about flowers and kisses if only Trotsky had been in charge.

Imagine if Trotsky had been the one to win the power struggle, and Stalin fallen from grace and eventually shot. Imagine - Stalinists today would be liberal sorts complaining about Trotsky's "terrible dictatorship", and the "permanent revolution" would be the equivalent of SiC for the Stalinists of today. Amusing.

What I mean is that a lot of people who don't really know or even much care for what Trotsky's policies were end up liking him for no other reason than that he is seen as the opposite of "repression" and "Stalin". Like the earlier poster, for example.

Except trotsky wasnt a stalinist and was murdered for fighting against it? A small fucking detail. Also you clearly dont have a clue about what perminant revolution actually is.

[Le Socialiste]

I would have loved to see this man replace Stalin and see the results of leftist leadership in the USSR instead of Stalin's despotism. Trotsky was not just a believer is democracy but a great military leader and hard core Russian bad-ass.

I am sure there are some proponents of Stalin who would disagree with me but what is life without conflict of opinion.

I'm not a proponent of Stalinism, far from it, but this post reminded me of something I wrote over a year ago that somewhat addresses this topic (I'll just copy and paste it):


I don't think you can wholly attribute what happened in the USSR post-Lenin to Stalin's personality and leadership. He was a key, integral aspect of it all, but the party had already assumed an isolationist, substitutionist trajectory before Stalin fully solidified his position within it. Material conditions, both within Russia and around the world, developed the relations and circumstances that transformed the Bolsheviks into the monolithic, top-down entity it became. Bureaucratism and state management of emerging state capitalist relations rendered the Bolsheviks a pale shade of what they formerly were. I don't think Trotsky could have altered this course, even if he'd wanted to (in part because, as a Marxist and historical materialist, it is clear that the 'great man' theory doesn't hold up). As for Trotsky being a 'less authoritarian' figure, he did lead the Red Army, argue for the militarization of labor during the civil war, and push for the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion. Now, I'm not going to draw judgement on these because I think it would distract from the point I'm trying to make. But in the end it's all just speculation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2576421

[Geiseric]

The bokshevik state killed a lot of people who were less deserving of it than kronstadt. Events such as the invasions of georgia, germany, poland, afghanistan, and finland are ignored because petit bourgeois socialists actually have a personal beef with trotsky. No shit he by himself couldnt save the world revolution. Petit bourgeois socialists dont even sympathize with the left opposition anyways, so I dont see why their propaganda regarding Kronstadt is held in such high regard.

[(A)]

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with the repression of the sailors uprising. I was just pointing out that Trotsky wasn't a dove. He was responsible for plenty of violent policies, as are at times necessary. I feel a lot of liberally inclined types just like Trotsky because well, "he wasn't Stalin lol!" while constructing some rosy view about flowers and kisses if only Trotsky had been in charge.

Imagine if Trotsky had been the one to win the power struggle, and Stalin fallen from grace and eventually shot. Imagine - Stalinists today would be liberal sorts complaining about Trotsky's "terrible dictatorship", and the "permanent revolution" would be the equivalent of SiC for the Stalinists of today. Amusing.

What I mean is that a lot of people who don't really know or even much care for what Trotsky's policies were end up liking him for no other reason than that he is seen as the opposite of "repression" and "Stalin". Like the earlier poster, for example.

“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” :trotski:

I am not saying he shit freedom and pissed fine vodka.
I am saying he was not Stalin. He was a man, flawed like us all but individual in himself. There would have been a somewhat different result and I would like to know what it would have been.

“Everything is relative in this world, where change alone endures.” :trotski:

[Jolly Red Giant]

I show that video to my history class when we are discussing the Show Trials.

[Rafiq]

Trotsky was a hypocrite, and an opportunist. While we can commend him for his service towards the revolution during the Russian civil war, the prime opposition Trotsky had leveled against Stalin was only done so from the comfort of not assuming the responsabilities of leadership in such conditions as Russia's. During the Trotsky-Stalin quarrel of the early 20's, Trotsky had argued for rapid industrialization and so forth - is this not exactly what Stalin had done? Anyone who thinks Trotsky's rule would have been very different is kidding themselves. If anything, Trotsky's rule would have more rapidly destroyed the gains of the revolution.

[Five Year Plan]

the prime opposition Trotsky had leveled against Stalin was only done so from the comfort of not assuming the responsabilities of leadership in such conditions as Russia's.

There was no viable alternative to Stalin's methods of rule, because those methods were the unavoidable byproduct of Russian conditions? Even if that is true, you jump the shark by assuming it to be the case, rather than testing it out in practice by trying to raise working-class opposition to counter-revolutionary leadership, which happens to be precisely (and unhypocritically) what Trotsky attempted to do. That you would line up on the side of Stalin shows where your politics actually lies. More evidence of the incestuous relationship between social democracy and Stalinism.


During the Trotsky-Stalin quarrel of the early 20's, Trotsky had argued for rapid industrialization and so forth - is this not exactly what Stalin had done? Anyone who thinks Trotsky's rule would have been very different is kidding themselves. If anything, Trotsky's rule would have more rapidly destroyed the gains of the revolution.Ah, yes. Because there's obviously only one way to carry rapid industrialization. What a persuasive argument.

[Rafiq]

There was no viable method to Stalin's rule as far as the preservation and defense of the revolution goes, no. By the early 1930's to speak of a "working class revolution" against the soviet state is absolutely ridiculous as well as completely improbable. There was absolutely no context for the occurrence of such a thing. Trotsky had not attempted to re-create the proletarian dictatorship, instead Trotsky had attempted to pursue Trotsky's own interests as an opportunist. Unlike what was allegedly revealed from the Great Purges, Trotsky was largely if not almost completely irrelevant by the time he was exiled. The same hypocritical scumbag who used the pretext of "human rights" and "liberty" in his criticism of the Soviet state? Could such arguments have not been made against the Bolshevik state during the times of the revolution, where the Cheka and organs of state power had utilized violations of 'liberty' and 'human rights' in order to defend the revolution? Trotsky was nothing short of a Menshevik opportunist at heart and Lenin faulted greatly in trusting him. The fires of the revolution were not kindled deep inside him, he was nothing short of a crypto-liberal, an apologist rather than champion of Communism. More de-legitimizing of the entirety of the post is the fact that you would associate with me 'social democracy'. If anything, there is an infinitely more likely tendency for Trotskyists to adhere to social democratic tendencies. I cannot help but ignore such accusations that I 'side' with Stalin, well with regard to his split with Trotsky if these are my only two choices then of course I will side with Stalin. I would have supported, as a candidate for leadership a military leader with more dedication towards the revolution, a la Mikhail Frunze.

During the 30's Hitler spoke about how he was worried fanatics would come to power in the Soviet Union that would rupture their alliance. These, perhaps, are those I would have given my support.

[Five Year Plan]

There was no viable method to Stalin's rule as far as the preservation and defense of the revolution goes, no. By the early 1930's to speak of a "working class revolution" against the soviet state is absolutely ridiculous as well as completely improbable.

We know in retrospect that Trotsky faced an uphill battle. To fault him for lacking that knowledge in the midst of class struggle is, as you might say, "absolutely ridiculous." What is more ridiculous still is to pretend that a political revolution of the masses was not possible, being that workers still had institutions whose formal structure was conducive to advancing their political agency, as warped as those institutions had become as the result of the bureaucracy.

But again, all this dodges the question completely. It's one thing to say that Trotsky was facing incredibly remote odds in his struggle. It's another thing to use that as a pretext for condemning his attempt to stimulate workers' agency to reign in a counter-revolutionary bureaucracy. By analogy: a political revolution of the masses in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s was more likely, I would wager, than a working-class revolution in the United States in the next five years. By your logic, we should be condemning American revolutionaries who are attempting to stimulate working-class anti-capitalist struggle against the bourgeoisie, by saying that the bourgeoisie is the only viable option at the present moment.

The rest of your post is not worthy of response.

[Rafiq]

No, you don't understand the point. The point is that to speak of a "working class revolution" could never even mean that and Trotsky knew damn well of it. He utilized such nonsense while fully aware of the situation - perhaps in an attempt at self aggrandizement, we will never know. By the way, what American revolutionaries do you speak of? I have never heard of them.

[Five Year Plan]

No, you don't understand the point. The point is that to speak of a "working class revolution" could never even mean that and Trotsky knew damn well of it. He utilized such nonsense while fully aware of the situation - perhaps in an attempt at self aggrandizement, we will never know.

Oh, so Trotsky, who led the revolutionary Red Army to victory, was deliberately lying in every single one of his revolutionary polemics, for reasons we can't guess at. Okay. You've once again proven yourself far removed from anything remotely resembling a rational argument.


By the way, what American revolutionaries do you speak of? I have never heard of them.You've never heard of revolutionary socialists, people struggling right now to advance the fight for socialism, living in the United States? You must be new here.

[(A)]

Trotsky was largely if not almost completely irrelevant by the time he was exiled. The same hypocritical scumbag who used the pretext of "human rights" and "liberty" in his criticism of the Soviet state? Could such arguments have not been made against the Bolshevik state during the times of the revolution, where the Cheka and organs of state power had utilized violations of 'liberty' and 'human rights' in order to defend the revolution?

This point of his action during the Revolution keep popping up.
I wonder what it was like back then. Did they consider what they were doing a war or civil oppression? Did they kill out of necessity, violence, convenience?
It is easy to see things from one angle; a lot harder to consider opposing ideas on these sorts of things.

[Rafiq]

Oh, so Trotsky, who led the revolutionary Red Army to victory, was deliberately lying in every single one of his revolutionary polemics, for reasons we can't guess at. .

No he wasn't lying, he was apologizing. All trotsky ever was was an apologist for Communism. Communists do not apologize.


You've never heard of revolutionary socialists, people struggling right now to advance the fight for socialism, living in the United States? You must be new here


Not presently, no. Who today is fighting for socialism in the United States? I wish to find, and join them immediately.

[Rafiq]

This point of his action during the Revolution keep popping up.
I wonder what it was like back then. Did they consider what they were doing a war or civil oppression? Did they kill out of necessity, violence, convenience?
It is easy to see things from one angle; a lot harder to consider opposing ideas on these sorts of things.

The barbarism of capitalism and neo-feudal Russia was the standard, they considered that they were fighting for the defense of the proletarian dictatorship at all costs. Do you think Robespierre and the Jacobins had the time or space to talk of violence and 'civil oppression' whilst the enemy had surrounded them at every corner?