Why do Stalinists Hate Trotsky?

[bed_of_nails]

I have noticed some of the Stalinists on this board hold contempt for Trotsky. Why? Because Trotsky was a critic of Stalin after Stalin stole the position Trotsky was supposed to obtain, and then Trotsky became a critic of Stalin?

[Redmau5]

It&#39;s not just Trotsky they don&#39;t like, it&#39;s anyone opposed to bureaucratic tyranny. <_<

[rice349]

It&#39;s not just Trotsky they don&#39;t like, it&#39;s anyone opposed to bureaucratic tyranny.

Funny makaveli_05 lol. Actually, while i can&#39;t speak for all "stalinists," being a "stalinist" myself however, i can speak as to why i dislike trotsky. First off, there are historical grounds in which he (like a number of other bolsheviks) acted as an opportunist in which he switched sides between bolsheviks and mensheviks depending on the political atmosphere. Initially, he was opposed to many of the ideas of Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks. For a number of years he was a menshevik and shared their dream of reform-style "revolution." Later, upon the increasing amount of success of the Bolsheviks, he found himself in Lenin&#39;s 1917 Politburo based mostly on his being an intellectual and his successes with the red army.

There is also ideological differences. Some Stalinists oppose Trotsky based on his theory of "permanent revolution." They believe that "socialism in one country" is achievable and see permanent revolution as reactionary in the fact that it ultimately benefits the capitalist imperialists. Another ideological reason for dislike is the Stalinist preference for a strong state in which bureaucracy does take form in the role of protecting the revolution. Trotsky was not a peaceful, overly democratic person who did have atrocities to his name which i believe have been brought up in other forums. If you want to learn more im sure you could find some pretty in-depth objective information online or in the library. But Trotsky became very critical of the revolution and Stalin&#39;s government while living in New York city during WWII and writing articles and works that would later make him a center for petit-bourgeois "communism" in the west. He actually was on Time magazines 100 greatest writers of the 20th century or something of that sort.

Trotsky never gained any serious following with a few exception in the third-world, but has remained quite popular amongst western communists.

I personally disagree with Trotskyites on a number of levels all being ideological. I do not hold it against them whatever actions Trotsky took upon himself. That isn&#39;t their fault, just as i hope they don&#39;t take it against me for agreeing with someone whom they feel committed atrocities as well (Stalin). While I disagree, I enjoy having debates with trotskyites and as makaveli_05 will tell you that i do not spit out incomprehensible or immature rants against trotskyites for the simple fact of creating a hostile argument. Any trotskyite that is wants to have a serious, civil , intelligent debate is more than welcome as well as more hostile converstaions as well :) In fact, with the exception of arguing with the religious right and the bourgeois at my college, are the most fun to get in debates with because they generally know their shit (as opposed to a number of other leftits). While i disagree with many trotskyites, they tend to be very intelligent and can put up quite a fight. So while i don&#39;t necessarily "hate" them, i strongly disagree with them. I hope this has somewhat answered your complex question.

[bed_of_nails]

Thank you very much, that did help a great deal. I am avoiding places suchs as libraries for information on communists because generally anything in a government-funded institute in the United &#036;tates is going to have a pro-capitalism spin.

I am glad to realize that this isnt an aggressive subject. I was beginning to think it was due to some of the slogans posted by Pro-Stalinists.

Edit: I was looking at political compasses, and found one for Stalin. It shows Stalin as being extremely Authoritarian, yet you seem to be extremely Libertarian. Is this true about Stalin, or is it rather opinionated. From what I have read in text books, Stalin was extremely Authoritarian.

[rice349]

I am glad to realize that this isnt an aggressive subject. I was beginning to think it was due to some of the slogans posted by Pro-Stalinists.

Well it can get quite aggressive, i&#39;m part of the Progressive Labor Party and i&#39;ve got in my fair share of shouting matches with some trotskyites, but it&#39;s all good. So mind you, it can get as heated as any debate, not to mention the tension that exists between groups of stalinists and groups of trotskyites, in whcih both are quite adament about their opninios it creates a good aggression.


I was looking at political compasses, and found one for Stalin. It shows Stalin as being extremely Authoritarian, yet you seem to be extremely Libertarian. Is this true about Stalin, or is it rather opinionated. From what I have read in text books, Stalin was extremely Authoritarian.

I am what you might consider, an "enlightened authoritarian." I believe strongly in authoritarianism as long as it is conducive to the workers movement. My most "libertarian" aspects regard my views towards homosexuality, marijuana use, and abortion. I believe in a strong, centralized state and i&#39;m very skeptical of democracy. I also am more than willing to accept that freedoms of those who oppose revolution should cease to exist. This is a very anti-libertarian view, so i consider myself a "stalinist" authoritarian who is not an anti-semite, homophobe, racist, or sexist. I hope that makes some sense lol.

[bed_of_nails]

It makes plenty of sense. You believe in a strong, centralized government that doesnt discriminate against anyone but those who oppose the revolution, correct?

[rice349]

It makes plenty of sense. You believe in a strong, centralized government that doesnt discriminate against anyone but those who oppose the revolution, correct?

Yes that is correct&#33; Religion would be included in those in which i would discriminate against. I also believe force to be a useful and necessary element to a strong centralized government against counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries.

[Hiero]

Stop making stupid threads.

If only i gopt 5c for every thread titled:

STALINISM=NAZISM
Why do people hate trotsky
Trotsky v Stalin
Stalin murdered my dog.
etc etc etc etc

[NovelGentry]

Yeah, I don&#39;t know about Stalinists, but I&#39;m starting to hate Trotskyists just cause I&#39;m sick of reading this crap, and i can only imagine that&#39;s where it&#39;s coming from.

[Hiero]

i can only imagine that&#39;s where it&#39;s coming from.

The international Trotsyite-Zioniev conspircacy.

[Lamanov]

"..dream of reform-style "revolution""

you mean liiiiike.. hm... damn, who was that? ....oh right, STALIN &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


"They believe that "socialism in one country" is achievable and see permanent revolution as reactionary in the fact that it ultimately benefits the capitalist imperialists."

Surely, you CAN explain that... mmmm, can u? [lol, don&#39;t bother, another RQ]


Seriously, its funny how rice can&#39;t handle the "very intelligent and can put up quite a fight" trotskyists on serious shit threads so he comes here to play a bigshot on the Learning board... hmm, don&#39;t bother rice. When Kyle here reads &#39;a book&#39; [any marxist will do] he will get the picture and forget how he ever started this thread where he got a mediocre answer from a guy who once said "i don&#39;t give a FUCK about what the workers want".

[Roses in the Hospital]

Because Trotsky was a critic of Stalin after Stalin stole the position Trotsky was supposed to obtain

Generally it&#39;s only the Trotskyists that make out Trotsky was &#39;supposed&#39; to inherit Lenin&#39;s position. In actual fact in the oft-quoted testament of Lenin, Lenin was critical of both Stalin (though far more so of Stalin.) Trotsky never really stood a chance of suceseeding Lenin as he was so unpopular with the party, due to his arrogance (though that&#39;s arguably because he was far cleverer than they were.) I think I&#39;m right in saying that Bukharin was the most likely to follow Lenin, other than Uncle Joe himself obviously...

[bed_of_nails]

I am just good at starting shitstorms it seems.

Hiero, thank you very much for calling my thread stupid. I am honored to find someone as benevolent and mature as you that can tell me not to ask questions, because they are stupid.

So basically this argument comes down to "We think the revolution should keep going on" against "We need just one revolution".

[bed_of_nails]

Reading over some basic views of Stalinism such as the complete removal of things such as freedom of speech I realize I am far from a Stalinist, I am a Leninist or a Bookchinist... I believe that the system must be controlled until the seeds of evil are destroyed, then the Communist society would blossom into a democratic society (Such as Lenin&#39;s beliefs).

[rice349]

Surely, you CAN explain that... mmmm, can u? [lol, don&#39;t bother, another RQ]

Despite the fact your question was rhetorical, i didn&#39;t explain it becaues that&#39;s not necessarily how i feel but okay.



Seriously, its funny how rice can&#39;t handle the "very intelligent and can put up quite a fight" trotskyists on serious shit threads so he comes here to play a bigshot on the Learning board... hmm, don&#39;t bother rice. When Kyle here reads &#39;a book&#39; [any marxist will do] he will get the picture and forget how he ever started this thread where he got a mediocre answer from a guy who once said "i don&#39;t give a FUCK about what the workers want".

I have participated alot on "serious shit threats" with trotskyites but they&#39;ve been inactive for a while. Also, i don&#39;t have much time for the boards period so answering things like this in which i can inform someone else who is seeking information rather than arguing with someone like yourself, seems more useful of my time as it is. By the way, i can&#39;t remember, who said, "i don&#39;t give a FUCK about what the workers want?"

My attachment to stalinism lies mostly in my interest and preference of totalitarianism and my qualms with democracy. I don&#39;t necessarily hate trotskyites, and i will debate you DJ-TC in a serious debate any time you want. I don&#39;t always have time to respond to long-ass threads but i will do my best. Again, any topic you want to discuss intelligently with me just say so and we&#39;ll discuss it.

bed_of_nails, don&#39;t listen to DJ-TC he is a whiny ***** who believes he is the only one (and those whom he agrees with) that know history, theory, economics, political science, etc. He comes at an argument only looking ot hear what he wants and accepting of only 1 perspective.

[Hiero]

Hiero, thank you very much for calling my thread stupid. I am honored to find someone as benevolent and mature as you that can tell me not to ask questions, because they are stupid.


My point is there are heaps of threads on Stalin.

[refuse_resist]

Lets not forget that at one time Trotsky wanted to testify before the House of Unamerican Activites and he ratted out many Communists to the FBI who were in Mexico. Also, when the U.S. government was plotting a coup against Stalin they promised Trotsky that they would put him in his place and during that time Trotsky was in contact with Japanese militarists.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:36 AM
Lets not forget that at one time Trotsky wanted to testify before the House of Unamerican Activites and he ratted out many Communists to the FBI who were in Mexico. Also, when the U.S. government was plotting a coup against Stalin they promised Trotsky that they would put him in his place and during that time Trotsky was in contact with Japanese militarists.
I done a search there and i could find nothing on Trotsky&#39;s so-called "ratting" of communists to the FBI or his working with Japenese militarists. Maybe im not looking hard enough, but it sounds to me like typical Stalinist bullshit.

[viva le revolution]

In my opinion both Stalin and Trotsky contributed to the success of the revolution.
Both had different methods of governing but the same goal, the success of the revolution.
There has been a lot of mudslinging between Stalinists and Trotskyites(sorry if i spelled it incorrectly), however i believe it was a conflict of egos more than anything else, in the end they both wanted to end Capitalism, so stop squabbling comrades and face the common enemy that is against all that we stand for&#33;
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION&#33;

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:15 PM

I done a search there and i could find nothing on Trotsky&#39;s so-called "ratting" of communists to the FBI or his working with Japenese militarists. Maybe im not looking hard enough, but it sounds to me like typical Stalinist bullshit.
And you&#39;d be right&#33;&#33; Stalinists have a history of slating Trotsky as they see him (Trotsky) as being the traitor&#33;&#33;
He never, at anytime, sided with the Mensheviks infact he was always very critical of their opportunism.

[h&s]

Yes, lets keep this thread &#39;clean&#39; and not revert to baseless slanderous allegations.

[rice349]

He never, at anytime, sided with the Mensheviks infact he was always very critical of their opportunism

Are you fucking kidding me? Or are you just that ignorant...well seeing that we&#39;re all ignorant, i&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you should do some serious evaluation of whoever taught you history. Trotsky remained with the Mensheviks until breaking up with them over disputes as to the direction of revolution in (i believe) 1904.

[Lamanov]

He never, at anytime, sided with the Mensheviks infact he was always very critical of their opportunism.


Trotsky remained with the Mensheviks until breaking up with them over disputes as to the direction of revolution in (i believe) 1904.

This is true. Trotsky was initially menshevik. This shouldn&#39;t be the question.

BUT... :D

Oportunistic? So him siding with the mensheviks and year after that conflicting with them over the theoretical-practical disputes is supposed to be oportunistic... why? Oh, I&#39;m sorry... were the mensheviks in power then ??? Riiiight.
At first he has no support in the bolsheviks due to his arrogance [and as some say intelect] and now he is switching parties due to his opportunism... :lol: great&#33;

By the way, do any of you have something to say against Plekhanov, maybe?

rice, I&#39;ll tell you what&#39;s opportunism and then I&#39;ll tell you what&#39;s ignorance.
Stalin - in his "Foundations of Leninism" in 1924. defends the idea of permanent revolution (*1), and just little time after that, jumps on it like it&#39;s a "counter-revolutionary" Trotskyst-Zinovievist nebulosis. Why? We&#39;ve allready explained that... and one who remembers - will get to the same conclusion I did - opportunism.

rice - having no knowledge of this, and than attacking the same idea that his dear "hero of communism" - comrade Stalin - defended. conclusion - ignorance.

(1) "For the downfall of the burgoise - one country&#39;s efforts are enough. History of our revolution shows us that. But for the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, efforts of one country - especially if it&#39;s a peasant country like ours - are not enough. To accive this we need the effort of the proletariat of many developed countries." J.V.Stalin, Foundations of Leninism

I think for someone who knows anything about anything can tell that this is pure permanent revolution doctrine. You can call it whatever you want - but still - it is what it is.