Trotsky

[Revolt!]

I'm sure this topic has been brought up many times before but new people inject new angles to a debate.

Much ink has been spilt over the famous Trotsky V Stalin contest as it were and the formers ousting.

How would Trotsky faired had he been able to get into power? Seeming as he was closest to Lenin and that Lenin himself famously warned the party away from Stalin what would have happened?

p.s. I remember reading somewhere that Trotsky wanted to shoot workers late for work. Not sure how much validity is in that statement but maybe someone knows something...

adios

[monkeydust]

Trotsky was certainly the more able intellectual, and public speaker, beside this it's quite hard to say how he would have fared.

It's my belief however, that Trotsky would not have initiated such ruthless and quick industrialisation as Stalin did, I don't think he would have instituted anything like Stalin's 'five year plans'.

In this sense, it's perfectly arguable that Trotsky wouldn't have been ready to face the brunt of Hitler's war machine in WW2. The consequences of this may hae been far reaching.

[Hate Is Art]

But Trotsky was the far better general, he also wouldn't have shot the best Red Army Generals like Stalin did which made them so weak at the start of the war.

It is one of those things that is very hard to say what would have happened.

Trotsky was all in favour of the permanent revolution, so we could have achieved pure, worldwide communism by now!

[Louis Pio]

In this sense, it's perfectly arguable that Trotsky wouldn't have been ready to face the brunt of Hitler's war machine in WW2. The consequences of this may hae been far reaching.


Well Hitler would probably have been defeated before then. Since the third international wouldn't have degenerated to that point were they used all their time attacking Social Democrats. A healthy soviet would have meant a healthy third international. Instead is was so degenerated that when Hitler came to power their response was "first Hitler, then it's our turn". It really is a sad story :(

[Essential Insignificance]

Trotsky was all in favour of the permanent revolution, so we could have achieved pure, worldwide communism by now!

That’s just an outlandish declaration of pronouncement…although I have strong feeling that this supposition was documented in an "light hearted" intent.

Had the soviets say, beneath the direct control of Trotsky, whom was a self acknowledged "Leninist"…well...we would be under the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen, obviously.

This proposal of yours is blemished on scores of levels, its barely worth the occasion for reprisals.

[Louis Pio]

Had the soviets say, beneath the direct control of Trotsky, whom was a self acknowledged "Leninist"…well...we would be under the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen, obviously.


Well I would rather think that a living bolshevik party instead of the caricature it evolved to would have been present under Trotskij and the left opposition. So yes we would have a dictatorship of the workers and not of Stalin and his clique. Dictatorship in the marxist sense that is.

[Revolt!]

He was disliked within the party for previously being a Menshevik as well as having Jewish roots (this seems surprising in a communist party) so it seems unlikely that he would ever been able to claim power. I'm sure the likes of Kamenev and Zinoviev were pleased to see the back of him, though they didn't fair too well under Stalin!

Its always hard to say, the old Socialism in one country vs World Revolution debate. I'm pretty sure Trotskys plans would have been seen by the west as Imperialism. After all, the U.S spent the whole cold war trying to stop the spread of communism.

[Hate Is Art]

That’s just an outlandish declaration of pronouncement…although I have strong feeling that this supposition was documented in an "light hearted" intent.


My "outlandish declaration of pronouncement" wasn't "documented in a light hearted way"

To achieve Communism in it's truest form we need to have the whole world embracing it, the permanent revolution could have set up a basis for this.


Had the soviets say, beneath the direct control of Trotsky, whom was a self acknowledged "Leninist"…well...we would be under the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen, obviously.

Yep, it would have been a great dictatorship, the best the world has ever seen.

[Louis Pio]

He was disliked within the party for previously being a Menshevik

Actually he wasn't really a menshevik for so long. Anyway alot of mensheviks went with the bolsheviks, many of them gained power under Stalin so I don't think it's a plausible argument. Most ordinary russians held Trotskij in high regards.
Stalin was on the other hand obscure and unknown, he even opposed the revolution so in many ways Stalin was the real menshevik, he even adobted their 2 stage theory.

[Hate Is Art]

Trotsky was dislike because of his arrogance. Not really because of his early Menshevik affiliations.


Most ordinary russians held Trotsky in high regards.


Due to his excellent qualities as a public speaker.

[konev]

yes the people liked him but most of the party did not. He was not an easily liked man, arrogant, head strong, stuborn, rude and melodramatic. He was also a brilliant as a military, politicans, writter, speaker and a leader. Men like Zinoviev or Bucharin dind´t like people smarter then they. Also Stalin was an old party man who had fought alongside the party since its begining, if not on a high level. Trotskij was after all and old menshevik who in less then 5 years rose to be sencond highets in the party, this offendet many of the old blosheviks and they followed Stalin, to bad for them since he purged them all.

If T had won the power struggle i think the world would be communist by now

[Revolt!]

Awfully contentious point don't you think? Hopefully it would have been true but the west would have seen it as imperialism.

[M_Rawlins]

Trotsky criticised the state of the bureaucracy of soviet government (which Stalin was at the head of - he was known in the party as "comrade card index" and "the grey blur"), also he didn't know how to talk to the lesser educated members of the party (unlike Stalin).

[Louis Pio]

[QUOTE]also he didn't know how to talk to the lesser educated members of the party (unlike Stalin). [QUOTE]

Probably, Stalin was known as the least intelligent of the cc members. He never understood marxism which was why he hated people like Lenin or Trotskij. His lack of understanding of marxism is clear from his writings. Also his later zig-zag politic makes this obvious. We also have to remember that the bolshevics wasn't a homogenic group. They had lots of different tendencies.
But now to the point: Trotskij can't really be described as a menshevic since the term didn't hold much value back then. Later on all important points Trotskij was in agreement with Lenin. Unlike Stalin who wanted to pursue a policy of class collaboration, which got Lenin to hammer him down.

[BOZG]

Trotsky split with the Mensheviks in 1904.

[Louis Pio]

Trotsky split with the Mensheviks in 1904.

Yes, and my point was that the differences wasn't so big then. Later they evolved with the menshevics becoming reformists. Stalinists always use the point that Trotskij was menshevic. But that just shows their limited understanding of the history of the bolshevics.

[Wenty]

And the party split in 1903, he was a Menshevik for one year then!

[Enver Hoxha]

Trotsky's place in history? Well we can only hope that he will be remembered for the Fascist-colloborating fool he was.

Unfournatly that wont happen while the bourgesie goes around singing his praises. Although lately they've taken to highlighting his more sinister side ('Stalinism' now being 'dead' they dont need him so much) such as wanting to shoot workers for turning up late.

You all praise the theory of 'permanent revolution' as if it's gonna solve all the problems in the future. Why dont you try finding out what Lenin had to say specificly on that theory?

Oh yes and as for 'brilliant' military commander perhaps you could all explain why the Red Army Generals actually insisted that Trotsky 'play no further part in military affairs'?

I only wish Trotsky himself were still here and posting on this board since I'd kinda enjoy making a fool out of him (not that many others wouldnt do a better job).

See yeah!

[Louis Pio]

Ehmm Enver arent you tired of exposing your ignorance and lack of ability to discuss in a normal manner on various discussion forums?

I will post this taken from "Bolshevism The road to revolution" by A. Woods
It's long so bear with me, I just think it gives a quite acurate picture of the split.

[/QUOTE]The Second Congress

The winter of 1902-03 saw “a desperate struggle of tendencies”[144] but gradually the political and organisational superiority of Iskra won the day. Committee after committee declared for the congress. Only a few expressed reservations. Yuzhny Rabochii criticised Iskra for its harsh treatment of the liberals. In desperation, the followers of Rabocheye Dyelo attempted to split a series of local committees, inciting the workers against “intellectuals”. Unfortunately, errors and clumsiness by Iskra supporters played into the hands of the opposition in some areas. In St Petersburg, they allowed the rabochedeltsy to reverse the decision to support the congress. This, however, proved to be only a hiccup. By the time the congress was convened, only one committee, Voronezh, decided to stay away.


The rest of the book can be found here Bolshevism The Road To Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/)

[Try the link if you are interested]

[Louis Pio]

Ok that was indeed very long. I will try to restrain myself in the future :unsure:

[Enver Hoxha]

Yeah very long indeed and as far as I can see completly pointless. Since all you've done is post Mr Woods view on the early Bolshevik Party. Even if it was full of wonderful sources and highlighting Trotsky's brilliance in being a 'Bolshevik' it would matter little since I didn't alledge anything on what that article in particular is dealing with.

Now I'm not sure who you think I am but right now I dont post on any other boards and haven't done for four months.

Anyway the fact regarding whether Trotsky was a Bolshevik or Menshevik is this, he did not join the Bolshevik party until August 1917 only after failing to gain support for his own party and seeing that the Bolsheviks were clearly strong and gaining suppot. Before that time he had spent years labelling the 'Leninist' Bolshevik Party as 'Dictatorial', 'Authoritarian', and other slanders that were precisly the same as the ones he used in his so called thesis against 'Stalinism'. After he had joined the Bolshevik party he rejected the princeples of Democratic Centralism, both speaking out against any democracy and at the same time refusing to acknowledge any authority if it went against what he said.

[Louis Pio]

Anyway the fact regarding whether Trotsky was a Bolshevik or Menshevik is this, he did not join the Bolshevik party until August 1917 only after failing to gain support for his own party

He never tried to build a party. But actually tried to unite the social democrats once more. That was of course fruitless


After he had joined the Bolshevik party he rejected the princeples of Democratic Centralism,

LOL Trotskij was against dc, I see <_<
Hehe maybe you could prove it somehow. You know with sourches and such like the bolshevism book?

Btw if we follow the 2 stage theory there should never have been a revolution in Russia. So since you support that I take it you were actually against the Russian revolution like Stalin was?


Now I&#39;m not sure who you think I am but right now I dont post on any other boards and haven&#39;t done for four months.


Well I thought you were that lil kid from socialist front with the same name

[konev]

if anyone collaborated whit the facists it was Stalin. The attacks on the social democrats where highly unstrategic and only served to destroy the united fronts. He pact whit Hitler allowed him to attack the west as well as Poland, had Stalin stood up to Hitler then i think the war could have been won much faster or maybe even not happend.
As far as the menshevism, Trotskij told Martov in 1917 to "go to the junkyard of history", hardly a thing to say for a menshevik

[Essential Insignificance]

To achieve Communism in it&#39;s truest form we need to have the whole world embracing it, the permanent revolution could have set up a basis for this.

Your going to have to "alter" the "laws" of history, in that case…very Leninist of you.



Yep, it would have been a great dictatorship, the best the world has ever seen.


Was that comment intended to extremely sardonic

[Hate Is Art]

ahhh yes another bafflingly pointless post from the king of the thesaurus.


Your going to have to "alter" the "laws" of history, in that case…very Leninist of you.

Haven&#39;t got a clue what your talking about, "alter" which "laws" of history? I was giving a hypothetical account of what could have happened if Trotsky had taken power after Lennin&#39;s death&#33;

And I&#39;m not a Leninist&#33;


Was that comment intended to extremely sardonic

I was being serious, it would have been the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen, you even said so yourself&#33;

[Essential Insignificance]

Haven&#39;t got a clue what your talking about, "alter" which "laws" of history? I was giving a hypothetical account of what could have happened if Trotsky had taken power after Lennin&#39;s death&#33;

Very hypothetical, undeniably…the "laws" of Historical Materialism…I take it your unfamiliar.


I was being serious, it would have been the greatest dictatorship the world has ever seen, you even said so yourself&#33;

Lets illuminate…are you signifying that this would be, indeed a good thing.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Revolt&#33;@Apr 15 2004, 01:05 PM
He was disliked within the party for previously being a Menshevik as well as having Jewish roots (this seems surprising in a communist party) so it seems unlikely that he would ever been able to claim power. I&#39;m sure the likes of Kamenev and Zinoviev were pleased to see the back of him, though they didn&#39;t fair too well under Stalin&#33;

Its always hard to say, the old Socialism in one country vs World Revolution debate. I&#39;m pretty sure Trotskys plans would have been seen by the west as Imperialism. After all, the U.S spent the whole cold war trying to stop the spread of communism.
Trotsky was not disliked because he was Jewish, he was disliked because he had such a great interest in bourgeois politics and culture. The west was also worried about the spread of communism under Stalin. Stalin inspired revolutions in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, Vietnam and other parts of the world.

[Louis Pio]

The west was also worried about the spread of communism under Stalin. Stalin inspired revolutions in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, Vietnam and other parts of the world.


Let&#39;s not forget he actually stopped most of them. A good example is China were all the workingclass cadres was killed because of the class collaborationist policy. Spain is another good example, germany, france and Denmark for that matter. The list is quite long. The only "revolutions" Stalin really liked were the ones he could control, as in eastern europe. And as I said before Stalin was even against the Bolshevics taking power. Also just look at the "theories" stalinism brought forth. All of them are quite reactionary: 2 stage theory, popular front etc etc

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:06 AM
Let&#39;s not forget he actually stopped most of them. A good example is China were all the workingclass cadres was killed because of the class collaborationist policy. Spain is another good example, germany, france and Denmark for that matter. The list is quite long. The only "revolutions" Stalin really liked were the ones he could control, as in eastern europe. And as I said before Stalin was even against the Bolshevics taking power. Also just look at the "theories" stalinism brought forth. All of them are quite reactionary: 2 stage theory, popular front etc etc
In China, Stalin had many of the top CPC members educated in Russia. He also sent advisers to aid the revolutionary struggle, such as Otto Braun. Braun&#39;s revolutionary experience became embellished in the Chinese proletrian struggle. He became friends with Mao and married a Chinese woman.

Stalin had Mao sent to Paris. The place of the original Paris Commune, which was much of Stalin&#39;s inspiration for the Soviet system, Mao was able to complete his study of Marxism, and there he married too.

You are right that the Communist in China did collaborate with a class other than the working-class. Marxism is a social science, and to best see how to apply Marxism one must look at each situation scientifically. Collaboration with the KMT had many cadres killed in the short term. However, they were able to defeat the Japanese imperialists, who if had taken power in China would attempt to eliminate the entire Red Army. The Soviet policy was a big success, and the Japanese were defeated and after the Communists took power.

In Germany a Soviet system may have been established immediatly after WWI had the SPD not suppressed the Spartacist uprising. They had Freikorps butcher communists and the two communist leaders executed. Even in the early 30s the SPD were campaigning against the KPD. They had propaganda presenting the SPD as an alternative to a communism system. Although, the SPD were the more powerful party in the Reichstag. In July 1932 the SPD had 44 more seats than the Communists and in November 1932 they had 21 more seats. The KPD could have allied with the SPD, and the SPD could have allied with the KPD if it were possible to come to an agreement at least. The two parties despised each other, SPD members were rabid anti-Communists and the KPD had been the victim of such great brutality from the SPD towards their movement throughout the 20s.

However, both parties wanted to take power. Neither could predict what the Hitler regime would do. The KPD though that once Hitler came to power they would then seize power from the Nazis as support for the KPD was increasing parallel with the Nazis.

To understand why the KPD did not ally with the SPD one must also look at the way in which the KPD vote growing whilst the SPD vote was although the SPD vote was still marginally larger. In addition, the SPD had no solution for the economic crisis, and were backing Bruning and Hindenburg, who were greatly responsible for letting the Nazis come into power.

Unfortunately, it is the that victors write history, and so the truth is difficult to discern.

[Louis Pio]

You are right that the Communist in China did collaborate with a class other than the working-class. Marxism is a social science, and to best see how to apply Marxism one must look at each situation scientifically. Collaboration with the KMT had many cadres killed in the short term. However, they were able to defeat the Japanese imperialists, who if had taken power in China would attempt to eliminate the entire Red Army. The Soviet policy was a big success, and the Japanese were defeated and after the Communists took power.


Well the point is that they could have avoided getting all these people killed. The communist international was even so degenerated at that point that they made Chiang Kai Shek "honour memeber""&#33; How is it a victory to get practically all your working class cadres killed? The class collaboration strenghtened the rightwing thus leading to lots of casualties that could have been avoided. IMO all these leaders were misseducated.


The two parties despised each other, SPD members were rabid anti-Communists and the KPD had been the victim of such great brutality from the SPD towards their movement throughout the 20s.


Yes you are right to some extent. But I think it&#39;s false to belive all rank and file members were rabid anti-communists. If the communists had called for a united front it would have exposed the Social Democratic leaders in the eyes of their members. Unfortunately they didn&#39;t follow Trotskys advice and the biggest communist party outside of Russia was defeated. For that I put the blame on Stalin and his reactionary policies. Later Stalin then worked with the fascists, gave them coal and so on.

To me it seems Stalinism is more keen on working with the bourgiosie than actually making a revolution

In Denmark after WW2 the communists could have taken power. But instead they went into government with the bourgiosie. And of course people lost all confidence in them.
Stalinism is not marxism but a perveted carricature. I could see why some people may look to it back then. But today it has luckily lost all credibility.

[Revolt!]

Trotsky was not disliked because he was Jewish

From my learning he was, of course we can never get inside the heads of those that disliked him&#33;

[Louis Pio]

From my learning he was, of course we can never get inside the heads of those that disliked him&#33;


Well Stalin used anti-semitism for his own gains. As well as he used russian nationalism. To me it shows how far removed he was from marxism

[Vladimir]

I&#39;m remembering some kind of collaboration with the FBI on Trotsky&#39;s part :o


Lenin, Letter to the Congress, p. 596.


Gravely ill, half paralyzed, Lenin was more and more dependent on his wife. A few overly harsh words from Stalin to Krupskaya led Lenin to ask for the resignation of the General Secretary. But who was to replace him? A man who had all of Stalin&#39;s capacities and `one more trait&#39;: to be more tolerant, polite and attentive&#33; It is clear from the text the Lenin was certainly not referring to Trotsky&#33; Then to whom? To no one.

Stalin&#39;s `rudeness&#39; was `entirely supportable in relations among us Communists&#39;, but was not `in the office of the General Secretary&#39;. But the General Secretary&#39;s main rôle at the time dealt with questions of the Party&#39;s internal organization&#33;



Stalin, The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now, p. 178.


`It is said in that ``will&#39;&#39; Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin&#39;s ``rudeness&#39;&#39; it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin&#39;s place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now .... At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post ....

`A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was obliged to remain at my post.&#39;


Trotsky&#39;s best moment in my opinion was his accusations against Stalin about murdering Lenin. :lol:


Ibid. , pp. 180--181.


But Trotsky&#39;s intrigues around this `will&#39; were not the worst that he had to offer. At the end of his life, Trotsky went to the trouble to accuse Stalin of having killed Lenin&#33;

And to make this unspeakable accusation, Trotsky used his `thoughts and suspicions&#39; as sole argument&#33;

In his book, Stalin, Trotsky wrote:

`What was Stalin&#39;s actual role at the time of Lenin&#39;s illness? Did not the disciple do something to expedite his master&#39;s death?&#39;

.

Trotsky, Stalin, p. 372.


`(O)nly Lenin&#39;s death could clear the way for Stalin.&#39;

.

Ibid. , p. 376.


`I am firmly convinced that Stalin could not have waited passively when his fate hung by a thread.&#39;

.

Ibid. , p. 381.


Of course, Trotsky gave no proof whatsoever in support of his charge, but he did write that the idea came to him when `toward the end of February, 1923, at a meeting of the Politburo ..., Stalin informed us ... that Lenin had suddenly called him in and had asked him for poison. Lenin ... considered his situation hopeless, foresaw the approach of a new stroke, did not trust his physicians ..., he suffered unendurably.&#39;

.

Ibid. , p. 376.


At the time, listening to Stalin, Trotsky almost unmasked Lenin&#39;s future assassin&#33; He wrote:

`I recall how extraordinary, enigmatic and out of tune with the circumstances Stalin&#39;s face seemd to me .... a sickly smile was transfixed on his face, as on a mask.&#39;

.

Ibid.


Let&#39;s follow Inspector Clousot-Trotsky in his investigation. Listen to this:

`(H)ow and why did Lenin, who at the time was extremely suspicious of Stalin, turn to him with such a request Lenin saw in Stalin the only man who would grant his tragic request, since he was directly interested in doing so .... (he) guessed ... how Stalin really felt about him.&#39;

.

Ibid. , p. 377.


Just try to write, with this kind of argument, a book accusing Prince Albert of Belgium of having poisoned his brother King Beaudoin: `he was directly interested in doing so&#39;. You would be sentenced to prison. But Trotsky allowed himself such unspeakable slanders against the main Communist leader, and the bourgeoisie hails him for his `unblemished struggle against Stalin&#39;.

.

Bernard, op. cit. , p. 53.


Here is the high point of Trotsky&#39;s criminal enquiry:

`I imagine the course of affairs somewhat like this. Lenin asked for poison at the end of February, 1923 .... Toward winter Lenin began to improve slowly ...; his faculty of speech began to come back to him ....

`Stalin was after power .... His goal was near, but the danger emanating from Lenin was even nearer. At this time Stalin must have made up his mind that it was imperative to act without delay .... Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin with the hint that the physicians had left no hope for his recovery or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know.&#39;

.

Ibid. , p. 381.


Even Trotsky&#39;s lies were poorly formulated: if there was no hope, why did Stalin need to `assassinate&#39; Lenin?

From March 6, 1923 until his death, Lenin was almost completely paralyzed and deprived of speech. His wife, his sister and his secretaries were at his bedside. Lenin could not have taken poison without them knowing it. The medical records from that time explain quite clearly that Lenin&#39;s death was inevitable.

The manner in which Trotsky constructed `Stalin, the assassin&#39;, as well as the manner in which he fraudulously used the so-called `will&#39;, completely discredit all his agitation against Stalin.

Source.... Lenin&#39;s &#39;Will&#39; (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000)

[Louis Pio]

I&#39;m remembering some kind of collaboration with the FBI on Trotsky&#39;s part

Yeh I did hear it before but from Stalinists but none have been able to elaborate further.

On the other hand I remember Stalin helping Hitler Germany till just the day before they attacked...

I do also remember that the Soviet didn&#39;t dare to let the question of their accusations against Trotskij for working with the fascists be a part of the Nuremburg trials...

Anyway I can see you still belive in the "stalinist school of falsification" well I basically don&#39;t care. Because as I said earlier: stalinism has lost all authority whatsoever. It could be nice if you were able to answer the point about the stalinists stopping revolutions and going along with classcollaboration...

[Vladimir]

Yeh I did hear it before but from Stalinists but none have been able to elaborate further



I. Trotsky and the FBI

Red Youth

An article appeared in The Independent on the 25/11/1993 which gave details of a friend of Leon Trotsky&#39;s living in Mexico, Diego Rivera, who provided information to the FBI on anyone that he suspected of being GPU (Soviet intelligence) agents. His allegations were directed against anyone working in such organisations as the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) to Mexican trade unions. This in itself is interesting because, officially Rivera and Trotsky broke personal relations on May 31, 1940. Trotsky wrote in a letter to the chief of the Federal District in Mexico, &#39;I have nothing in common with the political activities of Diego Rivera. We broke our personal relations fifteen months ago.&#39; (US National State archives; Trotsky Archive.)

But many people were mutual friends of the two, both of them worked in the same organisations such as the American Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky (ACDLT). Charles Curtiss was such a friend who sent Trotsky several reports of his meetings with Rivera: &#39;During my visit in Mexico, from July 4, 1938 to approximately July 15, 1939, I was in close association with Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky.... I served as an intermediary between them,&#39; (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1939-40)

Trotsky of course knew of this, thus helping Rivera in supplying information to the FBI.

To return to the article in The independent, a Professor William Chase of the University of Pittsburgh was quoted at the end stating that he has &#39;concrete information&#39; to prove that Trotsky was an FBI informant. Red Youth has subsequently obtained this information (the source relevant to this particular revelation is US State archives - RG 84 or from Prof. Chase himself. Any other evidence will be referred to after the quotation).

According to the Professor, the information Trotsky provided to the FBI was a means to obtain a US visa. But as the Professor points out, &#39;By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa.&#39;

Trotsky&#39;s hysterical allegations were directed against anyone who might share sympathies with the USSR under Stalin. In America the ACDLT campaigned for the asylum of Trotsky in the US. At the time of the World Congress Against War and Fascism and the Latin American Labour Congress, Trotsky asked his supporters to &#39;mail as soon as possible known names of congress delegates who are GPU agents&#39;. Prof. Chase admits himself the ridiculous nature of these allegations which leads one to think of the number of honest proletarian and democratic persons whose names who were supplied to the FBI, &#39;Trotsky&#39;s accusations that liberals and radicals who did not share his views on certain issues were Stalinists or GPU agents further diminished his support in the US.&#39;

But there is more. With this array of high-flown allegations Trotsky accepted an invitation to appear in front of the &#39;Dies Committee&#39;. This is otherwise known as the US Congress House Un-American Activities Committee. It was linked to overtly fascist figures, conducted anti-democratic witch-hunts and played a leading role in passing many anti-labour laws. Such was the anti-fascist and proletarian stance of Trotsky (fortunately, Trotsky never appeared on this committee because he never got a visa, but as we shall see he passed on information to the US government by other means). Now we come to the central point of this Red Youth exclusive: Trotsky&#39;s courtship of the FBI:

&#39;In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco&#39;s Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern&#39;s [the Communist international&#39;s] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.&#39;

&#39;Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor&#39;s memo to the FBI.

&#39;...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies&#39; concerns.&#39;

Well, there you have it. The outwardly anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US was shared by Trotsky.

While the whole world was facing the onslaught of fascist forces, when the USSR with the guidance of the communist party and comrade Joseph Stalin were facing this attack single-handedly on the behalf of all progressive humanity, when the colonies of imperialism were striving for national liberation, Trotsky and his vile organisations were aiding reaction every-where and still play their significant part in this today. While Red Youth prints this new evidence, it is of no surprise to us or anyone at all acquainted with the role of Trotskyism, that Trotskyism is truly the agent of the ruling class within the ranks of the working class and is used to full advantage by our enemies to this day as much as in the past. &#39;Overnight many of the older anti-Bolshevik crusaders abandoned their former pro-Czarist and openly counter-revolutionary line, and adopted the new, streamlined Trotskyite device of attacking the Russian Revolution &#39;from the left&#39;. In the following years it became an accepted thing for a Lord Rothermere or a William Randolph Hearst to accuse Josef Stalin of &#39;betraying the revolution&#39; [one can still see this as we are taught that it was obvious that Trotsky was the natural successor to Lenin in our schools and have to read the books of another state informer and Trotskyist - George Orwell]....

&#39;Adolf Hitler read Trotsky&#39;s autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler&#39;s biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in &#39;Der Fuehrer&#39; how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praise of Trotsky&#39;s book&#39; (&#39;The Great Conspiracy Against Russia,&#39; Kahn and Sayers).

But to be fair, Trotsky should be left to speak for himself. &#39;The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay. &#39;(Letter to Chkeidze 1913)

&#39;Brilliant&#33;&#39; cried Hitler, waving Trotsky&#39;s &#39;My Life&#39; at his followers. I have learned a great deal and so can you&#33;&#39; (&#39;Great Conspiracy&#39;).

Lalkar, March-April 1997.

I will try to reply to the others tomorrow....

[Louis Pio]

Ehmm but didn&#39;t diego rivera (the painter and wife of frida kalo) end up as a stalinist?

Btw what is this sourche? It seems a bit shady. Who the fuck is red youth?

But anyway you don&#39;t mind Stalin helping Hitler Germany? Ehmm im sorry but do I sense a bit of hypocracy? Anyway I asked you to elaborate on the points about stalinism stopping revolutions. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion it would be nice if you answered them.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:09 PM
Well Stalin used anti-semitism for his own gains. As well as he used russian nationalism. To me it shows how far removed he was from marxism
This is from a thread on the subject in the history forum some time ago:

-Stalin was married to a jewish woman (whether it was his 1st or 2nd marriage I don&#39;t know)
-One of the first orders Stalin gave to the Red Army was that Jews who wanted to should be evacuated East into the safety of the Soviet rear, out of the reach of the advancing Nazi army. A considerable portion of the Soviet railroad capacity, which otherwise would have been used to transport troops and material to the front, was allocated for this purpose.
-"Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death.

Stalin, January 12, 1931, to an inquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America"


"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of
the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the
most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the
blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the
working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in
the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be
irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a
phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites
are liable to the death penalty."

J. Stalin
January 12, 1931


[the Soviets had a]Jewish Autonomous Republic set up where Jewish culture and history was after centuries of Tsarist tyranny aloud and promoted for the first time.



Well the point is that they could have avoided getting all these people killed. The communist international was even so degenerated at that point that they made Chiang Kai Shek "honour memeber""&#33; How is it a victory to get practically all your working class cadres killed? The class collaboration strenghtened the rightwing thus leading to lots of casualties that could have been avoided. IMO all these leaders were misseducated.

It would have been possible that far less cadres would have been killed, you are right. But, as I said, looking at the situation scientifically once has to balance that with the risk that the entire Red Army would be eliminated and the revolution destroyed had the Japanese Imperialists defeated the KMT.

How was the Comintern degenerated? This was a good decision to ally with Chiang Kai Shek, they defeated the Japanese Imperialists with the help of the millions strong KMT and then were able to defeat the KMT despite having an army in the number of a few hundred thousand.

Look at the situation logically. Sometimes it is necessary to ally with the enemy to ensure the final victory of the revolution.


Yes you are right to some extent. But I think it&#39;s false to belive all rank and file members were rabid anti-communists. If the communists had called for a united front it would have exposed the Social Democratic leaders in the eyes of their members. Unfortunately they didn&#39;t follow Trotskys advice and the biggest communist party outside of Russia was defeated. For that I put the blame on Stalin and his reactionary policies.

The KPD had the goal of taking power, not defeating the Fascists. They thought that would be more likely if the Nazis took power. It was of course a miscalculation.

[Louis Pio]

How was the Comintern degenerated? This was a good decision to ally with Chiang Kai Shek,

They made him honour member. IMO they betrayed all their comrades who got killed. A opposition against the Japanese build on the working class would have been much stronger. Instead they udermined the chinese workers.


The KPD had the goal of taking power, not defeating the Fascists. They thought that would be more likely if the Nazis took power. It was of course a miscalculation.


Well if you belive that then you are saying that both Stalin and all of the international was stupid. Very stupid. IMO Stalin wasn&#39;t. I think he sacrificed Germany so that his personal position wouldn&#39;t be pressured. If the German communists had come to power they would have a big say internationally because of the developed state of their country. That would mean Stalin would have to give up some of his power.


After the signing of the Pact, Stalin and his clique went to the most incredible extremes to ingratiate themselves with the Nazis. The following extract from the diary of Hencke, a German diplomat, describing the banquet which celebrated the signing of the Pact shows the lengths to which Stalin was prepared to go to conciliate Hitler:

"Toasts: In the course of the conversation, Herr Stalin spontaneously proposed to the Führer, as follows: &#39;I know how much the German nation loves its Führer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.&#39; Herr Molotov drank to the health of the Reich Foreign Minister and of the Ambassador, Count von der Schulenburg. Herr Molotov raised his glass to Stalin, remarking that it had been Stalin who--through his speech of March of this year which had been well understood in Germany--had brought about the reversal in political relations. Herren Molotov and Stalin drank repeatedly to the Non-Aggression Pact, the new era of German-Russian relations, and to the German nation. The Reich Foreign Minister (Ribbentrop) in turn proposed a toast to Herr Stalin, toasts to the Soviet government, and to a favourable development of relations between Germany and the Soviet Union - Moscow, August 24, 1939. (Nazi-Soviet Relations, pp. 75-6, reproduced in Robert Black, Stalinism in Britain, p. 130.)

From Fifty years after the death of a tyrant (http://www.marxist.com/History/stalin_death3.html)
This pretty much shows Stalins hypocracy. One thing is to manover between imperialist states. That is neccesary, but to toast with the killers of the german communists...


I don&#39;t think Stalin was particularly anti-semitic. But just as he used the international working class as pawns in his game he also used anti-semitism. The bureaucracy used every oppotunity to talk about Trosky&#39;s jewish origin. Which from a communist standpoint is totally irrelevent.


Stalinism and Anti-Semitism

Lenin and the Bolsheviks fought anti-Semitism before the revolution as well as after the workers took power. Whereas the Soviet Government under Lenin not only repealed all the discriminatory laws against the Jews and made anti-Semitism a crime, under Stalin the old anti-Semitism that had been suppressed, raised its ugly head again. It was part of the reactionary political counter-revolution. In his war with the Left Opposition, Stalin exploited the anti-Semitic tendencies in the country.

In “Thermidor and Anti-Semitism”, written in 1938, Trotsky explained the roots of anti-Semitism in the former USSR:

“The October Revolution abolished the outlawed status of the Jews. That, however, does not at all mean that with one blow it swept out anti-Semitism. A long and persistent struggle against religion has failed to prevent suppliants even today from crowding thousands and thousands of churches, mosques and synagogues. The same situation prevails in the sphere of national prejudices. Legislation alone does not change people. Their thoughts, emotions, outlook depend upon tradition, material conditions of life, cultural level, etc. The Soviet regime is not yet twenty years old. The older half of the population was educated under Czarism. The younger half has inherited a great deal from the older. These general historical conditions in themselves should make any thinking person realize that, despite the model legislation of the October Revolution, it is impossible that national and chauvinist prejudices, particularly anti-Semitism, should not have persisted strongly among the backward layers of the population.

“But this is by no means all. The Soviet regime, in actuality, initiated a series of new phenomena which, because of the poverty and low cultural level of the population, were capable of generating anew, and did in fact generate, anti-Semitic moods. The Jews are a typical city population. They comprise a considerable percentage of the city population in the Ukraine, in White Russia and even in Great Russia. The Soviet, more than any other regime in the world, needs a very great number of civil servants. Civil servants are recruited from the more cultured city population. Naturally the Jews occupied a disproportionately large place among the bureaucracy and particularly so in the lower and middle levels. Of course we can close our eyes to that fact and limit ourselves to vague generalities about the equality and brotherhood of all races. But an ostrich policy will not advance us a single step. The hatred of the peasants and the workers for the bureaucracy is a fundamental fact of Soviet life. The despotism of the regime, the persecution of every critic, the stifling of every living though, finally the judicial frame-ups are merely a reflection of this basic fact. Even by a priori reasoning it is impossible not to conclude that the hatred for the bureaucracy would assume an anti-Semitic color, at least in those places where the Jewish functionaries compose a significant percentage of the population and are thrown into relief against a broad background of the peasant masses.”

National and chauvinist prejudices, particularly anti-Semitism, continued to exist after the revolution. Not only this, but under the Stalinist bureaucracy anti-Semitism among the masses was based once again on the particular characterization of the Jewish population on one hand, and the attitude of the privileged layer of the bureaucracy toward the Jews on the other. The Jews, being urbanized and educated, disproportionately became members of the bureaucracy, particularly so in the lower and middle levels. The hatred of the peasants and the workers for the bureaucracy, as a fundamental fact of Soviet life, was focused against those bureaucrats they faced daily, many of whom were Jews. The privileged bureaucracy, fearful of its privileges, exploited the most ingrained prejudices of the masses in order to protect itself. And if this was not bad enough the Soviet regime under Stalin initiated a series of judicial frame-ups after the Second World War against the Jews. Soviet life was characterized by bureaucratic abuse, similar to the suffering of the Palestinians under the Israeli occupation who require the service of the Israeli bureaucracy set up to deal with them. Bribery, corruption, embezzlement, the violation of women and the like are daily events. From time to time the top bureaucrats feel the need to protect themselves by demonstrative trials. In the case of the Soviet Union, Jews comprised a significant percentage in such trials. For self-preservation, the leading cadre of the bureaucracy in the main centers and in the provinces diverted the indignation of the working class away from the bureaucracy.

In the struggle against the Opposition, the top bureaucrats used any weapon they could. Not only was Trotsky&#39;s son Sergei Sedov accused of a massive poisoning of working people, but Trotsky himself was accused of being behind all the crimes that were committed in the Soviet Union. Stalin&#39;s propaganda machine fostered the prejudices and anti-Semitism of the masses against the ‘cosmopolitan’ Jews that were in the camp of Trotsky and his son, who were Jews themselves. Fostering the anti-Semitism of the backward masses began after Zinoviev and Kamanev joined the Left Opposition. The Stalinists shamelessly spoke of the three "dissatisfied Jewish intellectuals”. To reinforce the point Jews were removed from positions. The slogan "Beat the Opposition" often took on the colors of the old slogan "Beat the Jews and save Russia." Stalin himself came out with a printed statement which declared: "We fight against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev not because they are Jews but because they are Oppositionists." For every thinking person it was clear that while Stalin himself formally spoke against the excesses of Anti-Semitism, the message he was getting across was that the Oppositionists were Jews.

After the assassination of Trotsky by a Stalinist agent, anti-Semitism continued in the former Soviet Union. There were two known trials against the Jews. The first one took place between 1948 and 1952, and was precipitated by Stalin&#39;s growing paranoia about Soviet Jews. All the victims were members of the so-called Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, set up with Stalin&#39;s approval during World War II to rally financial support, mainly from wealthy Americans, for the Soviet war effort. Stalin felt the need to repress the Jews because he himself fostered Jewish nationalism in the former USSR by supporting the partition of Palestine.

With the birth of the state of Israel and the start of the Cold War, he felt he could no longer rely on Jews as loyal citizens. He believed that they held loyalty both to the state he controlled and to the state he helped to create. A state-sanctioned trip by Committee members to the United States in 1943 was presented during the trial as espionage, because sending propaganda material to the West was deemed as divulging classified information. A request to resettle displaced Holocaust survivors in the Crimean peninsula was labeled a sinister plot to declare the region independent from the Soviet Union.

In 1953 Stalin alleged the existence of a "Doctors&#39; Plot," masterminded by Jews, to poison the top Soviet leadership. Stalin died before a trial could be called, but he had been planning to forcibly deport two million Jews to Siberia. The dictator died soon after and it was possible that his non-Jewish assistants who feared for their lives poisoned him. The executions for “economic crimes” of the early 1960s were directed largely against Jews.

Thus the situation had come full circle. The 1917 socialist revolution had laid the basis for the eradication of anti-Semitism. It had also laid the basis for the eradication of all forms of discrimination. Had the revolution spread to other countries there could have been a harmonious movement towards genuine socialism. On the basis of the planned economy everyone could have had a guaranteed job, decent housing, good health care, good quality education, etc. In the long run racism and all forms of discrimination can only be eradicated by removing the economic conditions upon which it flourishes.

As the revolution was isolated in one backward country, it degenerated and a bureaucracy usurped political power. This became a fetter on the development of the Soviet Union. With growing social problems the bureaucracy reverted to some of the dirty methods of the old Tsarist regime, including anti-Semitism.

However, the short period in which a relatively healthy workers’ state existed in the Soviet Union (early 1920s) we had a glimpse of what would be possible under genuine socialism. Anti-Semitism still exists today, together with all the other forms of discrimination. Our task today is to continue the struggles of the Bolsheviks. Once socialism becomes a world system, then all the material conditions will be established through which all forms of racism and discrimination will be eradicated once and for all.

December 2003



Taken from The Origins of the Jews Part 4 (http://www.marxist.com/History/origins_jews4.html)

[Enver Hoxha]

Stalin anti-semitic? Hmm I swear I heard that one before. :D

Instead of alledging that Stalin is responsible for the massacre in China in 1927, why dont you try finding out what Stalin&#39;s real position was in 1927 on the issue of the CCP and the KMT? Why dont you read what he actually said? Or what Mao and the CCP said, or Dmitroff (who was actually the head of the Comintern, NOT Stalin) on what the CCP&#39;s position in relation to the USSR and KMT should be?

Do that and you&#39;ll see that the truth is in a different reality to as how Mr Trotsky&#39;s biographer describes it. Ofcourse you could be one of those extremely dogmatic Trots who actually still claims that the theory known as &#39;Permanent Revolution&#39; (while your at it read what Lenin said on that) is correct and somehow should of been applied to China in 1927.

Before describing how it was all Stalin&#39;s fault that Hitler came to power (note not anyone but the Trots take this seriesly, although that&#39;s what you get when you ignore that it was the Catholic party which voted to approve in the Enabling Act, German bussiness that funded the Nazis and Von Papen and Hindenburg making Hitler chancellor. But it&#39;s all Stalin&#39;s fault :blink:) why dont you also read up on what the German Communist Party was actually writing in their paper about the SPD? It&#39;s not as Mr Trotsky or Woods would have you believe.

Trotsky criticised for criticisng sake. He just like you now scream at Stalin for supposedly not taking a position that he should have. Then when Stalin (or the Comintern, but for the Trot&#39;s we shouldn&#39;t confuse them by pointing out that there was actually more to the USSR and international Communist movement than Stalin) takes that position that they pleaded for they proceed to scream at Stalin for taking that precise posistion.

No wonder even the western bourgesie pleaded with Trotsky to actually add some substance to his articles attacking Stalin towards the end.

[Invader Zim]

I think that perhaps you should visit http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/

They are more welcoming for those of your ideology. Not that che-lives is an unpleasant bored, but usually stalinists tell us we are told that we are "weed smoking, liberal, hippy shit, trot, utopian, idiots" who only like socialism because "RATM say so". They then wonder why they are banned, but I get the fealing you will find that a better enviroment for debate, as members of this forum are tired of Stalinists in general.

Of course there are stalinists who are both polite and respectful of other ideals, are usually most welcome, however they are also rare, so new stalinists are treated with contempt usually.

Just a friendly warning.

[Enver Hoxha]

Enigma I&#39;m frankly dissapointed that you would give me such a &#39;warning&#39;. Although your right it is &#39;friendly&#39; compared to how you used to talk to us back in the day. Fair enough, and all but I&#39;ve been here for almost two years now and if I had been banned permanetly or left than we would never of met that summers day and enjoyed a fine pint of Kronenberg.

Anyway since you know I&#39;ve done this a thousand times before you&#39;ll forgive my sarcastic tone in some elements of my posts. But you also know I&#39;ve been proved right all those times. :P Get with the winning team mate you know Stalin was right, to quote a Oasis song, &#39;I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve heard it all before, but you never really had a doubt.&#39;

So if you dont know who I am all I can say is your a weed smoking, liberal, hippy, trot, utopian, idiot who cant hadle his drink.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Enver [email protected] 22 2004, 08:40 PM
Enigma I&#39;m frankly dissapointed that you would give me such a &#39;warning&#39;. Although your right it is &#39;friendly&#39; compared to how you used to talk to us back in the day. Fair enough, and all but I&#39;ve been here for almost two years now and if I had been banned permanetly or left than we would never of met that summers day and enjoyed a fine pint of Kronenberg.

Anyway since you know I&#39;ve done this a thousand times before you&#39;ll forgive my sarcastic tone in some elements of my posts. But you also know I&#39;ve been proved right all those times. :P Get with the winning team mate you know Stalin was right, to quote a Oasis song, &#39;I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve heard it all before, but you never really had a doubt.&#39;

So if you dont know who I am all I can say is your a weed smoking, liberal, hippy, trot, utopian, idiot who cant hadle his drink.
Ohh its you... LOL, why are you not using the other account?

Enigma I&#39;m frankly dissapointed that you would give me such a &#39;warning&#39;.

What you prefer my old approach?

Get with the winning team mate you know Stalin was right,

... nahh.

So if you dont know who I am all I can say is your a weed smoking, liberal, hippy, trot, utopian, idiot who cant hadle his drink.

My joint favourate stalinist.

Did you sort things out with your family BTW?

[Louis Pio]

Trotsky criticised for criticisng sake.

No he analyzed what was happening and criticised from that.
But in your oppinion we should never criticise the "glorious leaders" or what?

Yes I know Stalin wasn&#39;t kominterns leader but it&#39;s quite obvious he had quite a big say. He had the power to disolve it to please Churchill and the lot...

Yes all this wasn&#39;t Stalins fault as one person but rather the fault of the bureacracy and Stalin was pretty much their leader...
So in your oppinion the kominterns policy was actually correct?
Btw Alan always build his articles on primary sources.

Anyway you never answered my point about the 2 stage theory, because according to that the Bolshevics shouldn&#39;t have taken power.

[roman]

One day every trotskyist should have his own party and own 4th international. And, every Trotskyist will try to sell me his paper.

[Louis Pio]

:P

Blah blah blah.
If you can&#39;t pull your head out of your ass then don&#39;t bother to write, ok?

[Saint-Just]

They made him honour member. IMO they betrayed all their comrades who got killed. A opposition against the Japanese build on the working class would have been much stronger. Instead they udermined the chinese workers.

Allying with the KMT, they had more soldiers, therefore their army was stronger.


Well if you belive that then you are saying that both Stalin and all of the international was stupid. Very stupid. IMO Stalin wasn&#39;t. I think he sacrificed Germany so that his personal position wouldn&#39;t be pressured. If the German communists had come to power they would have a big say internationally because of the developed state of their country. That would mean Stalin would have to give up some of his power.

I agree that Stalin was not stupid, neither was the KPD. The suggestion that a Communist Germany would have threatened Stalin is beyond ludicrous. Ideologically, the KPD and the Bolshevik Party were in agreement, similarly the Communist Party of China was, and in China Stalin encouraged the socialist revolution. China had the potential to be more powerful than the USSR. Although you are correct in seeing that Germany is a very strong country.

[Louis Pio]

Allying with the KMT, they had more soldiers, therefore their army was stronger.


Still they didn&#39;t need to make him homour member. When the bolshevics signed the peace with the Germans they didn&#39;t make them honour members and gave their cadres the illusions that they were our friends. You can see the difference right?


I agree that Stalin was not stupid, neither was the KPD. The suggestion that a Communist Germany would have threatened Stalin is beyond ludicrous.

Look at what happened with China afterwards or with Yougoslavia or the other "communist" parties. When a bureacracy ended up having the power in a country they didn&#39;t want Stalin and Russia to butt in. Also they were the ones to liberate the country (unlike in eastern europe) so they had the basis for power and not the Russians. The same would have been the point with Germany. Because of the advanced industry of Germany they would get the lead.



I would suggest you to read The Rise and Fall of the Communist International (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/3/comintern.html)

Unless you have a problem with "trotskyite" material. I don&#39;t have any problems with maoist, stalinist etc. But people are of course different.

[Enver Hoxha]

&#39;&#39;The Party (its majority) groped its way towards this new orientation. It adopted the policy of pressure on the Provisional Government through the Soviets on the question of peace and did not venture to st4ep forward at once from the old slogan of the dictatorship of the poletatriat and peasantry to the new slogan of power to the Soviets. The aim of this halfway policy was to enable the Soviets to dscern the actual imperialist nature of the Provisional Government on the basis of the concrete questions of peace and in this was to wrest the SSoviets from the Provisional Government. But this was a profoundly mistaken position, for it gave rise to pacifist illusions, brought grist to the mill of defenscism, and hindered the revolutionary education of the masses. At that time I shared this mistken position with the Party comrades and fully abandoned it only in the middle of April, when I associated myself with Lenin&#39;s theses&#39;&#39;.


&#39;&#39;The present situation in Russia... represents a transition from the first stage of the revolution to its second stage which is to place power in the hands of proletariat and the poorest strata of the pesantry&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;Trotskys: &#39;No Tsar but a workers&#39; government&#39;. This, surely is wrong&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;Had we said: &#39;No Tsar, but a Dictatorship of the Proletariat&#39; it would have meant a leap over the petty bourgeoisie.&#39;&#39;

&#39;&#39;Comrade Rykov says that Socialism must first come from other countries with great industrial development. But this is not so. It is hard to tell who will begin and who will end. This is not Marxsim, but a pardoy on Marxism&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events.. in prompus and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;The bourgesois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. The bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more compelte, determined and consistent the boureois revolution, the more secure will the proletrain struggle against the bourgeoisie and for socialism become&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;Trotsksy&#39;s major mistake is that he ignores the bourgeois character of the revolution and has no clear conception of the transition from this revolution to the
socialist revolution&#39;&#39;.

&#39;&#39;Trotsky.. repeats his &#39;original&#39; theory of 1905 and refuses to stop and think why, for ten whole years, life passed by this beautiful theory.
Trotsky&#39;s orginal theory takes from the Bolsheviks their call for a decisive revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat and from the Mensheviks it takes the &#39;repudiation&#39; of the role of the peasantry.....
Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal labour politicians in Russia who by the &#39;repudiation&#39; of the role of the peasantry mean refusal to arouse the peasants to revolution.&#39;&#39;

&#39;&#39;absurdly &#39;Left&#39; theory of &#39;permanent revolution&#39;&#39;

[Louis Pio]

Ehmm maybe a bit of explaining would help? Because without that is has no relevance

[Enver Hoxha]

Hmm not sure what happened there but I did have a long post with all that. Give me a few days and I&#39;ll have the time to do it again.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:57 PM

Allying with the KMT, they had more soldiers, therefore their army was stronger.


Still they didn&#39;t need to make him homour member. When the bolshevics signed the peace with the Germans they didn&#39;t make them honour members and gave their cadres the illusions that they were our friends. You can see the difference right?


I agree that Stalin was not stupid, neither was the KPD. The suggestion that a Communist Germany would have threatened Stalin is beyond ludicrous.

Look at what happened with China afterwards or with Yougoslavia or the other "communist" parties. When a bureacracy ended up having the power in a country they didn&#39;t want Stalin and Russia to butt in. Also they were the ones to liberate the country (unlike in eastern europe) so they had the basis for power and not the Russians. The same would have been the point with Germany. Because of the advanced industry of Germany they would get the lead.



I would suggest you to read The Rise and Fall of the Communist International (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/3/comintern.html)

Unless you have a problem with "trotskyite" material. I don&#39;t have any problems with maoist, stalinist etc. But people are of course different.
I don&#39;t think whether or not they gave Chiang Kai Shek such a title is of any importance. This was in the context of a war, and not peace as was the agreement with the Germans, so it is somewhat different.

I agree that Stalin could have feared a German superpower had it turned against the USSR. However, he has more to fear from a Capitalist German superpower than a group of revisionists (revisionism being something that at the time was of little threat). In the post war period revisionism was far bigger issue. Even so I believe it is an easy risk to take, the benefits of being able to ally with Germany are great whilst the risk that it turns against the USSR seemingly less. The USSR took the risk in China, that a communist China would ally with them.

[Louis Pio]

I don&#39;t think whether or not they gave Chiang Kai Shek such a title is of any importance. This was in the context of a war, and not peace as was the agreement with the Germans, so it is somewhat different.


Well it shows one of the differences between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin would never give people illusions in bourgious or extreme rightwing leaders. Stalin did all the time.


I agree that Stalin could have feared a German superpower had it turned against the USSR. However, he has more to fear from a Capitalist German superpower than a group of revisionists

Well I think he more feared loosing personal authority. Yes he had alot to fear from the capitalists. But still he helped them and closed the 3. international to please american and british capitalists. He started relieing on capitalist powers instead of the workers making a revolution. There was several chances for revolution in Europe after WW2 but because of the communist policy these chances weren&#39;t taken.

[Saint-Just]

Well it shows one of the differences between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin would never give people illusions in bourgious or extreme rightwing leaders. Stalin did all the time.

I cannot think of any examples of this. Nevertheless, Chiang Kai Shek was under no illusion when the Communists defeated him.


Well I think he more feared loosing personal authority. Yes he had alot to fear from the capitalists. But still he helped them and closed the 3. international to please american and british capitalists. He started relieing on capitalist powers instead of the workers making a revolution. There was several chances for revolution in Europe after WW2 but because of the communist policy these chances weren&#39;t taken.

There are no examples of anti-revolutionary policy post WWII. Much of Europe, including half of Germany had socialist revolution following the end of WWII. In addition, the same happened in much of Asia.

Surely, Stalin would not have encouraged Mao if he feared losing personal authority. Although as I said before Germany was and is still a more powerful country than China. How did he aid capitalist leaders in any fashion that did damage to the socialist movement? The defeat of 172 of the 256 German divisions aided the capitalists, but I would suggest that it was also in the interests of the world&#39;s working-class and peasantry.

[Louis Pio]

I cannot think of any examples of this.

Germany...
The first popular front government in France 1932
Denmark after ww2 etc.
I can find more examples. It gives a better picture. The whole of the third international took that sort of zig-zag turns. Form oppotunism till ultraleft secterianism and back again. Quite sad...


There are no examples of anti-revolutionary policy post WWII. Much of Europe, including half of Germany had socialist revolution following the end of WWII. In addition, the same happened in much of Asia.


Yes there is. In Denmark after ww2 the communists gained massive support. What did they do with it? They formed a goverment with the bourgiousie which made them loose the support they had in the next election. Also the workers in Denmark wanted to have the money the capitalists owed them after the war. Instead of supporting their strike the communist party told them to stop it.

Also the case of Greece is quite clear. Stalin didn&#39;t give support to the guerillas down there but let the british slaughter them. In asia they let the struggle against the british end in the biggest murder. Because of their crazy zig zag turn. (they even supported the partition at some point&#33;) that gave rise to Ghandi who commited one of the greatest crimes against the people of the indian sub-continent ie. the partition leading to big massmurders.

But in eastern europe it was another example since 1. it was a part of his arrangments with the british and american imperialists 2. he could control it directly because of red army pressence.


Surely, Stalin would not have encouraged Mao if he feared losing personal authority. Although as I said before Germany was and is still a more powerful country than China. How did he aid capitalist leaders in any fashion that did damage to the socialist movement? The defeat of 172 of the 256 German divisions aided the capitalists, but I would suggest that it was also in the interests of the world&#39;s working-class and peasantry.

Well he probably thought he could control him.
Well the smashing of the fascists was in the interest of workers. But by a correct policy it could have been done along time before. Stalin let his paranoia of internal enemies lead to the zig zag turns of the komintern. Alot of people wouldn&#39;t have needed to die if he hadn&#39;t killed most of his officers. He didn&#39;t need to aid germany in every fascion as he did. Or give people illusions in bourgious leaders. Nor did he have to kill most of the old bolshevic vanguard. Thats not socialism but an extreme case of paranoia endangering the soviet union.