Trotsky

[Socialist_Smurf]

It seems to me that calling someone a "trot" is insulting. Why is this? I have researched Trotsky, and he seems to be an intellectual that would have been better then Stalin (which is, in my opinion, not very hard). So why is it that Trotsky, a comrade of Lenin, is so disliked?

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Probably because he was against the Stalin regime, and the new dictatorial plans Stalin had for the Soviet Union.

[rice349]

The main reason people dislike Trotsky is he is an opportunist. First off, he was against Lenin for a number of years and didn't come around til the most opportune times. Secondly, after leaving the Soviet Union, he became a popular icon of bourgeois liberalism and an "acceptable revolutionary" for Westerners and American liberals. He lived in New York City and wrote a series of anti-revolutionary works about the Soviet Union and Stalin. He later died a deserving death outside Mexico City and they turned his house into a little museum, kind of touching actually. Oh yeah, and his on/off lover Frida Kahlo even denounced him and favored Stalin...

for more info on Trotsky and why people don't like him read this article...(its a PDF file so if you don't have adobe you might have to download it) http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/trotskypl74.pdf

[encephalon]

during Stalin's dictatorship, pretty much any deviance from what Stalin called "communism" or any objection to his actions and policy was called "trotskyist" (with some exceptions) because trotsky was stalin's main opponent in controlling the ussr after lenin's death. That is, until Trotsky left the soviet union and later assassinated by soviet.. assassins. The term was still used well after that, however, and while the soviet union was under stalin's control it was almost always used in a derogatory fashion.

I think Stalin was pissed off because Trotsky was right, as history has shown.

[rice349]

I think Stalin was pissed off because Trotsky was right, as history has shown

If trotsky was right then how come there has never been a trotskyite revolution?


during Stalin's dictatorship, pretty much any deviance from what Stalin called "communism" or any objection to his actions and policy was called "trotskyist" (with some exceptions) because trotsky was stalin's main opponent ............The term was still used well after that, however, and while the soviet union was under stalin's control it was almost always used in a derogatory fashion.

Kinda like how the trotskyites coined the term "stalinist" as a pejorative word for those who followed the Marx-Lenin-Stalin doctrine?

[encephalon]

He was correct in regards to the fall of the USSR under Stalinist principles, and the degeneration of democratic control--within and without the party--under stalin's leadership.

[rice349]

I think there is more evidence to the degeneration of socialism in the USSR pointing the blame on revisionism -- do u remember perestroika? and liberalization of the economy by Khruschev and Brezhnev?

[LSD]

He was correct in regards to the fall of the USSR under Stalinist principles, and the degeneration of democratic control--within and without the party--under stalin's leadership.

As opposed to under Lenin's leadership?? :lol:

Besides, I would hardly call Leon Kornstadt Massacre Trotsky a democrat of any sort!


I think Stalin was pissed off because Trotsky was right, as history has shown.

Stalin was pissed off because Trotsky lived.

As long as he was around, he was a "threat" to Stalin's grip on power. Notice how few (read: none) of Stalin's original colleague's survived.

In regards to Comrade Stalin, paranoid is a severe understatement.


It seems to me that calling someone a "trot" is insulting.

Sectarian bullshit.

We'd all be a lot better off if certain people would grow up.


Why is this? I have researched Trotsky, and he seems to be an intellectual that would have been better then Stalin (which is, in my opinion, not very hard).

Well... we don't really know do we?

Trotsky could never have lead the party (if not because of political reasons then because of religious ones), but we really have no indication that had he somehow managed to, he would not have been just as dictatorial as Papa Joe.

Certainly, the way he ran the Red Army isn't enouraging, nor is the way he actually administered.

Sure, he writes a good pamphlet, but when he was really running things, I notice that very little um .... socialism actually occured.


So why is it that Trotsky, a comrade of Lenin, is so disliked?

Trotsky was a hypocrite, a liar, and a traitor to the revolution..

but then Stalin was a hypocrite, a liar, and a traitor to the revolution.

And, yes, Lenin was a hypocrite, a liar, and a traitor to the revolution.

The Soviet Union was not communist, it wasn't "on the road to communism", it wasn't even socialist.

So how about we stop the worship of three dead Russians and get to the business of the future?

[encephalon]

there seems to be some confusion.. I don't support trotsky any more than I do Stalin. I see them both as opportunists. And yes, I do recall perestroika. This does not change the fact the Trotsky predicted the fall of the USSR, and also claimed that Stalin would desintegrate any semblance of democratic control. Although you may not, I attribute the failure of the USSR to the failure of the proletariat's control. Under Stalin (or any leader, including Lenin), it was not a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was a dictatorship of Stalin.

[workersunity]

he is disliked because people are ignorant and do not understand him

[rice349]

he is disliked because people are ignorant and do not understand him

This may express the reason why some people dislike Trotsky, but the same could be said about people who dislike Stalin....besides, there are plenty of people who have taken the time to study and read Trotsky and still find him unappealing.

[NovelGentry]

I just never liked his recipe for fried chicken http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32460

[rice349]

lol that is hilarious

[workersunity]

ya i agree, that people will say all that people can say that about a lot of people, im gonna have to check on these other issues. :)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:43 PM
First off, he was against Lenin for a number of years and didn't come around til the most opportune times.
Yeah, just in time to get thrown into a prison camp by the Brits in Canada, then in jail by Kerensky....what a careerist that Trotsky was!

Hint: the people to be suspicious of are the people who join a party AFTER it takes power. Quite a few of them staffed Stalin's regime, incidentally.


Secondly, after leaving the Soviet Union, he became a popular icon of bourgeois liberalism and an "acceptable revolutionary" for Westerners and American liberals.

Eh, no. While he was alive, he was a symbol of scary world revolution, as opposed to acceptable, moderate, "Socialism in one country" Stalin. Or in the words of Austin Chamberlain: "Britain cannot normalize relations with the Soviet Union because the last Trotskyite has not yet been shot against a wall."


He lived in New York City

Um, that was during WWI.

After being expelled from the USSR, the capitalists of most countries didn't even consider him "acceptable" to be given political asylum. Certainly not the U.S. He was bounced from country to country for a while before finding some stable refuge in Mexico, under a left-nationalist government which nationalized the oil and railroads...

I'd say you've born out the statement that many people dislike Trotsky out of ignorance.

I'd argue it's more historically accurate to see Trotsky as part of the communist movement, part of communist political continuity, rather than as leader of something separate and opposed to that....as Cannon wrote in "History of American Trotskyism", "Trotskyism is not a new doctrine, a new movement, it is the continuation of genuine Bolshevism." Or something like that.


If trotsky was right then how come there has never been a trotskyite revolution?

Well, gee, there was this little insurrection in Petrograd which Trotsky kinda organized, as head of the Military Revolutionary Committe....you may have heard of it....the October Revolution, or something like that....

As for the various groups calling themselves Trotskyist, they've been small in size, mostly low in experience, and often not much to do with Trotsky's ideas politically.

I think there was also a flawed idea on the relation between democratic and socialist revolutionary tasks he promoted in the later period of his activity, under the "permanent revolution" label...he was right against Stalinism, in rejecting reliance on a "progressive" or "national" bourgeoisie, and the idea that the capitalists should keep power because objective conditions weren't ripe for socialism. But mistaken in telescoping the democratic and socialist revolutions completely together, when typically the first task of a workers' and farmers' government is to take care of the unfinished business from the age of bourgeois-democratic revolutions...actually destroying capitalism comes later, sometimes significantly later.

This is something of a fine point, not known to many, and so has nothing to do with h why some people dislike Trotsky, but IMO a little to do with the failures of "Trotskyist" groups.

(Anything with "ite" on it is usually a pejorative term, BTW. Don't use it if you want to maintain some pretense of seeking a civil discussion of the issues.

Similarly, if Trotsky had wanted to be pejorative, it would be "Stalinite". In reality, it's an accurate piece of terminology, reflecting the class and political break between communism and Stalinism. And it applies not just to Stalin personally and his admirers, but to the apparatchik rule he represented, to his sucessors as head of the nomenklatura in the USSR and elsewhere, the parties worldwide looking to those regimes for guidance... the rationalizations created to cover the interests of the bureaucratic caste.)

[workersunity]

trotsky is such a cool name isnt it, man its cool :trotski:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because in my dream, Trotsky married David Jason.

[CommunistZeal]

Trotsky was the intellectual heir of Lenin. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a Stalinist. Trotsky understood, along with Lenin, that Russia was too backwards to reach socialism any time soon. That's why they maintained dictatorial rule over Russia, creating militant "labor armies" that were supposed to rapidly develop the country's industrial base, thus laying the groundwork for socialism. Neither of them ever believed Russia was socialist or communist. They knew they were running a state-capitalist economy. I don't agree on all points with Trotsky, but that's why I admire him. He proved he was a very competent leader and an organizational genius, not just as a commander of troops but as a very perceptive Marxist thinker. Stalin on the other hand, was too much of a brute for the wrong reasons. He liquidated an entire generation just so no one would know he was sitting on his ass the night of the October revolution.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:13 AM
They knew they were running a state-capitalist economy.
Considering Trotsky argued very strongly against the Soviet Union being state capitalist....

[Questionauthority]

Trotsky understood, along with Lenin, that Russia was too backwards to reach socialism any time soon
Hmm as I recall during the revolution the Kronstadt saliors who had probably set up the most successfull direct democracy during the early stages of the revolution...then along came lenin who took away all the democracy that had begun to be created, took power away from the soviets and installed himself into power as a dictator.... of course stalin was much worse but I mean trotsky was still another "leader" who followed the line "i can take you to a better tomorrow but you have to follow me"
+ too backwards to reach socialism? haha just ask some primmos (not that I am one)

[Roses in the Hospital]

installed himself into power as a dictator

Lenin was never a dictator. He may have been the most respected member of a dictatorial government but, when he wanted something doing he needed votes from his peers like anyone else...

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

trotsky is such a cool name isnt it, man its cool

Yes, it is ironic. And it becomes even more ironic if you understand swedish. "Trotsa" in swedish means "going against" - and it is exactly what Trotsky did - he went against the Soviet Union for it's dictatorial means.

Kind of a fun thing to know...

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:10 AM
It seems to me that calling someone a "trot" is insulting. Why is this? I have researched Trotsky, and he seems to be an intellectual that would have been better then Stalin (which is, in my opinion, not very hard). So why is it that Trotsky, a comrade of Lenin, is so disliked?
Isn't brilliance often despised? :D


:trotski:

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:43 PM
The main reason people dislike Trotsky is he is an opportunist. First off, he was against Lenin for a number of years and didn't come around til the most opportune times. Secondly, after leaving the Soviet Union, he became a popular icon of bourgeois liberalism and an "acceptable revolutionary" for Westerners and American liberals. He lived in New York City and wrote a series of anti-revolutionary works about the Soviet Union and Stalin. He later died a deserving death outside Mexico City and they turned his house into a little museum, kind of touching actually. Oh yeah, and his on/off lover Frida Kahlo even denounced him and favored Stalin...

for more info on Trotsky and why people don't like him read this article...(its a PDF file so if you don't have adobe you might have to download it) http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/trotskypl74.pdf
Not true, Trotsky always supported Lenin's main ideas about the need for the building of a party and the way this should be done. The only thing they at first had difference of opinion about was the dealing with the menshewiks (Trotsky had some illusions in the possibility of unionizing with the menshewiks, while Lenin never had any doubt about the petty-bourgeouis nature of the menshewiks).

Trotsky was killed by an order from your big friend Stalin...anti-revolutionary books...Stalin betrayed the revolution...Trotsky never did!

[Severian]

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 25 2005, 03:22 PM

Not true, Trotsky always supported Lenin's main ideas about the need for the building of a party and the way this should be done.
Always? In order to maintain this historically false view, you'd have to deny the existence of works like this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1904/1904-pt/index.htm#online)

More importantly, though, Trotsky did right when it counts: during war and revolution. That's a test that many fail.

[workersunity]

ya true trotsky was a good man,

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 27 2005, 03:42 AM--> (Severian @ Mar 27 2005, 03:42 AM)
RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 25 2005, 03:22 PM

Not true, Trotsky always supported Lenin's main ideas about the need for the building of a party and the way this should be done.
Always? In order to maintain this historically false view, you'd have to deny the existence of works like this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1904/1904-pt/index.htm#online)

More importantly, though, Trotsky did right when it counts: during war and revolution. That's a test that many fail. [/b]
Did Trotsky in general ever disagree with Lenin about the need for a mass workers' party and the building of a revolutionary organisation?

The answer is NO! That is what counts.

[Prol]

What was Trotsky's view on Lennin having the sailors killed?

[Lamanov]

Hmmmmm....
Kronstadt... what the hell was... oh, right, I remember.

I had some doubts about Kronstadt and the so-called "anarchist" uprising.
I still have the same doubts as month ago when I posted this reply on History board.


- Why is the violent suppresion of the Kronstadt rebellion counter-revolutionary method ? Was the retaliation counter-revolutionary or the uprising itself a counter-revolution ? "Soviets without Bolsheviks" or 'no Bolsheviks = no Soviets' ? I think these are pretty fare questions concidering what the historical sources tell us [among first - documentative sources from the soviet archive which was opened to public 15 years ago].
There are important elements and facts to take under concideration when you think about Kronstadt. Ofcourse, you are a comrade so i guess i should understand your standpoint, thus i wont even discuss about the burgoise seeing of Kronstadt, especially because of the ridiculous attempts to equalise Trotskys' methods with Stalinist.

Known facts in short : 1) there is no way to claim that Kronstadt sailors are the same 'group' as the one from the october days of 1917; 2) only unit who dissobayed orders for attack on the city is the 561st regiment which was in majority a group of former 'Whites' from the armies od Denekin & Vrangel; 3) political reasons for dissobediance of other troops are non-existant; the other troops include 2 peasant regiments - 236th and 237th - who did not want to obey orders because they were unsure of the attack upon dangerous fortification defended by the fleet; 4) some ships declared neutral and some refused to take part in rebellion; 5) sailors of the 3 ships - Ural, Orpheus, and Winner - stated that "People of the White Guard who lead the rebellion can pretty much hurt the Republic, and they can bomb Petrograd"; 6) The local workers took controll of the city before the penetration of the Red Army; [and so on..] It is also important to understand the social structure of the fleet and its dynamics durring the civil war. It is no surprise that the leaders of the rebellion were two anti-socialists (Dimitriev and Koslovski), and one anti-bolshevik (S.H. Dimitrev) who was - no surprise - later recruited by Stalins' GPU in 1927.

It wouldnt be right to use the words of accused, but in this case ill make an exeption, because there is no better way to understand the political structures in Kronstadt at the time :

>> The political composition of the Kronstadt Soviet reflected the composition of the garrison and the crews. The leadership of the soviets as early as the summer of 1917 belonged to the Bolshevik Party, which rested on the better sections of the sailors and included in its ranks many revolutionists from the underground movement who had been liberated from the hard-labor prisons. But I seem to recall that even in the days of the October insurrection the Bolsheviks constituted less than one-half of the Kronstadt Soviet. The majority consisted of SRs and Anarchists. There were no Mensheviks at all in Kronstadt. The Menshevik Party hated Kronstadt. The official SRs, incidentally, had no better attitude toward it. The Kronstadt SRs quickly went over into opposition to Kerensky and formed one of the shock brigades of the so-called ”left“ SRs. They based themselves on the peasant part of the fleet and of the shore garrison. As for the Anarchists, they were the most motley group. Among them were real revolutionists, like Zhuk and Zhelezniakov, but these were the elements most closely linked to the Bolsheviks. Most of the Kronstadt ”Anarchists“ represented the city petty bourgeoisie and stood upon a lower revolutionary level than the SRs. The president of the soviet was a nonparty man, ”sympathetic to the Anarchists,“ and in essence a peaceful petty clerk who had been formerly subservient to the czarist authorities and was now subservient . . . to the revolution. The complete absence of Mensheviks, the ”left“ character of the SRs, and the Anarchist hue of the petty bourgeois were due to the sharpness of the revolutionary struggle in the fleet and the dominating influence of the proletarian sections of the sailors. << [ L.Trotsky, Hue And Cry Over Kronstadt, publ. by The New International, 15.1.1938. ]

Actually, he had some disagreements with Lenin, and biggest one was on Brest-Litovsk peace. When you put just a litle bit of logic in it to realise he had a good point. Personally - I would sacrifice dozen of &#39;Octobers&#39; which lead to stalinism just for a chance of one big world revolution that would take us to socialism. "alea iacta est"]

Besides, every time "Trotsky" thread comes up stalinists say how "he was jelaous of Stalin" and "anarchists" say how "he slaughtered poor Kronstadt anarchists", and even if so, still, none of them have anything to say against the doctrines of trotskyism. I mean, I&#39;ve never attacked Stalin [I think so] personally, just retarded conceptions and "theories" of stalinism [and as such - titoism, maoism and so on].
I&#39;ve never heard such accusations about anyone, much less Trotsky, after which real doctrinal thesis follows... never. It comes all down to undermind and pejorise his personality so you can keep up your stalinist doctrine [which some of you hypocriticly like to call it marxist-leninist]... hmmm.. interesting... In order to avoid this unscientific behaveor of some CheLives members I suggest you to read some of his works.
I reccomend "Revolution Betrayed" and ">>Socialism in one Country<<"
Also some of his memoars would be good too.

[resisting arrest with violence]

Those who despise Trotsky are inveterate authoritarian thugs. However harsh this statement seems to some of you, it has actually been tempered by a pretty girl who just handed me a pamphlet to attend Bible study (I&#39;m in the library by the way). So what I actually had in mind to write here has been softened by this girl&#39;s pretty face. Don&#39;t get me wrong I am not a religious nut but his girl softened me up a little toward you Stalinist thugs. By the way the pamphlet this girl gave me contains an e-mail address, so you can be sure that I will act as an agent provocateur sending them messages that are inimical to organized religion. So yes I hope to drive a splinter through that little Bible Study and hopefully deflower this virgin madonna before she gets out of my clutches. I guess it will be my good deed for the day.

O.k. coming back to the subject of Trotsky: Remember that Orwell based his Emmanuel Goldstein on Trotsky and Goldstein&#39;s book on Trotsky&#39;s The Revolution Betrayed. Trotsky was a genius. Any comments to the contrary notwithstanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky