Trotsky on freedom and democracy

[Le People]

I have read some Trotsky. He is anti-stalinist, but from what I read he never made clear what he stood for on democracy besides the soviets. Was he fixing for allowing more parties, freedom of speech, or what?Could some one inform me or give me some resources.

[Redvolution]

I once read that he wasn't very free-speechish until after his party in the Communist Party began to wane. Thus, he solicited for people to be able to openly criticize the party, but it was too late...Stalin already had the party in his pocket.

Poor Trotsky. Damn Stalin.

[Roses in the Hospital]

"There is a limitation to the application of democratic methods. You can enquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether they wish to apply the breaks when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."
- Leon Trotsky

As fundementally a Leninist Trotsky couldn't be anything other than a vanguardist, though I believe he said something along the lines that the vanguard should always remain a vanguard of the people for the people, but perhaps I'm confusing that with someone else.
In the early years, however, he joined with the Menshevik faction over fears that Lenin's theories would inevitably lead to dictatorship.
I think it's safe to say that had Trotsky remained in influence in the Soviet Union he would have promoted freedom and democracy a lot more than Stalin did (though admitadely that's not particularly difficuilt. :D )

[Warren Peace]

I think it's safe to say that had Trotsky remained in influence in the Soviet Union he would have promoted freedom and democracy a lot more than Stalin did (though admitadely that's not particularly difficuilt. )

Agreed.

[Holocaustpulp]

I have argued in the past that Lenin and the Bolshevik party was repressive, yet I was disproved by some comrades and shown that Trotsky and Lenin limited democracy to a certain extent due to wartime circumstance and a coordinated need for defense. That is, the action was very meek, the soviets still had much say in politics (albeit military), and ultimately the system was supposed to be re-organized after the period of turmoil. The chance to establish a complete worker's democracy in the Soviet Union (postponed by aggressors and counterrevolutionaries) was killed with Lenin and with the Stalinist Bloc that overran the Kremlin.

In the end, the quote by Trotsky shown above reveals his position and circumstance very well.

- HP

[Le People]

could anybody point me to any specfic lititure that explains his position more clearly?

[romanm]

Trotsky was a pig renegade.

[dietrite]

Romanm is right.

He is often used as the symbol of the great liberal freedom marxist line of thought, but was just as authoritative as Stalin, if not more so.

I find the western communists' acceptance of Trotsky as repulsive as the west's acceptance of any of the variously marketed products from the foreign world in general.

Let's all recall his idea to send in the army to put down the workers unions.

[Le People]

When did that happen? Enlighten me.

[dietrite]

Somewhere around May 1921, look it up. It's well-known by USSR historians (I don't mean western historians btw).

[Le People]

Now, when you say USSR historains, do you mean the Stalinist liars?

[dietrite]

Yes, I mean Stalinist liars.

Moron.

It's well-known that Trotsky was one of the most authoritative communists in the party, it's just been smudged up as to the actuality of his brutalities.

He had a thing called "militarization of labour"...which nulled workers unions and their power, placing a complete dictatorship in the hands of the party...which isnt unLeninist, but it certainly also isnt unStalinist.

[dietrite]

And why the fuck do you have a Mao (Stalin-supporter) quote in your signature, jackass???

[Le People]

At the time it was the only signatuer I could think of.

[dietrite]

Good one, "Le People".

What are you, 12?

[Le People]

Naw, 103. Check my signature now comrde!

[Le People]

O.K people, please, tell me some reads by him on freedom, say from Trotsky Internet Archive.

[dietrite]

He basically supported Lenin on the nature of the state in relation to the workers, sometimes going beyond lenin in authoritative nature.

Look through his works, don't ask us to go through them and link you specifically.

[Roses in the Hospital]

If I remeber rightly Trotsky was responsible for sending the Red Army in to wipe out the revolutionary sailors who'd been instrumental in bringing the Bolshevik's to power when they began to grow uneasy with the authoritarian way the party was developing. Although, this information does come from a Chanel Four documentary so there's the possibility that there was an anti-left spin put on it...

[jabra nicola]

When looking at Trotskys views on democracy it is important to place his views in historical conext and in relation to other tendencies at any given point in time. I'll try to do just that as briefly as possible taking up a number of specific episodes.

1 The Split with the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP. At the outset of this dispute Trotsky was a supporter of the Iskra tendency. However he broke with the newly formed Bolshevik faction as in his opinion Lenins theory of the party would lead to a substitution of the party for the class and then the party leadership for the party until a single leader assumed control. Implcit in his critique is the rejection of the thesis, found in WITBD?, that revolutionary class consciousness must be developed by the revolutionary intelligentsia. This thesis I note is not found in the later Lenin and is certainly not found in Marx but belongs to kautsky from whom Lenin was quoting.

2 Kronstadt and the Militarisation of Labour. Both these episodes come at the conclusion of the triumph in the Civil War and are of a piece. One problem besetting the workers state was that productivity was extermely low and want generalised throughout society. One response to this was the argument that given the success of the Red Army that units of that force being disbanded should be retained nd turned into Labour Armies to boost production. This argument was trotskys and Lenin made clear that such coercive initiatives, while they might be effective in the short term, were not approriate and would hav a negative impact on the morale of workers. Trotsky by seeking to use administrative means was to the right of Lenin and was expressing a bureuacratic attitude as Lenin noted. The question that should be asked is why?
In the case of Kronstadt it cannot be denied that here we have an incidence in which the Bolsheviks acting as a united party physically destroyed a local rebellion led by anarchists. Agin the question is why? For the simple reason that the leaders of Kronstadt would, when the ice meted, have turned over the fortress to the counter revolutionary Whites in finland. And Pavel Avrich, himself ana anarchist, has confirmed that the Kronstadt anarchists were in touch with the reaction and in exile joined the Whites. Regretable this incident was and the Bolsheviks certainly lied about it a the time but theirs stance was the only one possible. it should not be forgoten that at the same time there was a renewed wave of Kulak rebellions threatening the workers state stirredup by former SRs working hand in hand with the Whites and the imperialists. One final point the Kronstadt garrison of 1921 consisted of peasants and was not the same force that played such an heroic role in 1917.

3 Left Opposition. in the early 1920s Trotsky made a blunder of massive proportions. he did not take up the offer of Lenin to jointly wage a struggle against the growing power of the bureaucracy and Stalin in particular. then Lenin died and Trotsky was out manouvred into going along with the supporession of Lenins final writings. With the result that the power of the bureaucratic stratum around Stalin was boosted and the later struggles of the Left Opposition was more easily destroyed by the internal reaction.

To conclude. Trotskys attitude to democracy was never class less but was dependent on the needs of the class struggle at any given time. Sometimes, as with the militariation of labour, he made mistakes and to his credit he learnt from those mistakes. Sometimes he struck theoretrical gold as with his rejection of the kautskyyite thesis of class consciousness being brought to the proletariat from without. Properly speaking that position revises marx and after 1904 is not to be found in Lenins writings either. It is no accident that in the literary debates of the early 1920s Zinoviev attacked Lukacs (author of History and Class Consciousness) while defending kautskys thesis as the centerpeice of his invention of a bogus 'Leninism'. A creed that lenin would have rejected just as Marx rejected the 'Marxism' of HM Hyndman.

[D_Bokk]

Leon Trotsky, The Kronstadt Rebellion (July, 1938)

"The truth of the matter is that I personally did not participate in the least in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, nor in the repressions following the suppression. In my eyes this very fact is of no political significance. I was a member of the government, I considered the quelling of the rebellion necessary and therefore bear responsibility for the suppression.

Concerning the repressions, as far as I remember, Dzerzhinsky had personal charge of them and Dzerhinsky could not tolerate anyone's interference with his functions (and property so). Whether there were any needless victims I do not know. On this score I trust Dzerzhinsky more than his belated critics. Victor Serge's conclusions on this score - from third hand - have no value in my eyes. But I am ready to recognize that civil war is no school of humanism. Idealists and pacifists always accused the revolution of "excesses". But the main point is that "excesses" flow from the very nature of the revolution which in itself is but an "excess" of history."

Just something that Trotsky wrote, his reasons for not personally participating in the suppression I don't know...

[Donnie]

Poor Trotsky. Damn Stalin
Huh? I think it's more like poor Makhno, damn Trotsky and damn Stalin.

I have no sympathy for Leon Trotsky. He imprisoned and brutally murdered anarchists. The anarchists joined the Red army to defeat the White army and when they did what did they get for thanks? Imprisoned and murdered. So much for freedom&#33; <_<

Kronstadt rebellion was 2 weeks after the death of Peter Kropotkin. What about the anarchist’s killed and imprisoned during the Civil war and just after, because Makhno was banished before Kropotkins death.

[spartafc]

Interesting to see some of the usual distortions: Trotsky as a stalinist caricature. I presume that it&#39;s imagined by some users that Trotsky didn&#39;t have the backing of Lenin as the People&#39;s Commissar for War from 1918 to 1924.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:49 PM

Poor Trotsky. Damn Stalin
Huh? I think it&#39;s more like poor Makhno, damn Trotsky and damn Stalin.

I have no sympathy for Leon Trotsky. He imprisoned and brutally murdered anarchists. The anarchists joined the Red army to defeat the White army and when they did what did they get for thanks? Imprisoned and murdered. So much for freedom&#33;

Kronstadt rebellion was 2 weeks after the death of Peter Kropotkin. What about the anarchist’s killed and imprisoned during the Civil war and just after, because Makhno was banished before Kropotkins death.
To the best of my knowledge Trotsky had no personal responsibility for the suppression of Maknos movement. It is fair to say that both he and Lenin as the leading figures in the Soviet state were responsible for that repression however. But to state that Trotsky jailed and murdered anarchists is an emotional not an rational or historical response to what actually happened.

Nor is is true to say that the Maknovists joined the Red Army come to that. They did fight alongside the Red Army against the Whites but then resfused to enter into an agreement with the Soviet state that would have granted them an autonomous region in which to do, more or less, as they wished. Instead they resumed hostilities against any and all forces in what they saw as their territory incluuding against the Red Army. The Red Army therefore had no other option but to disperse them as a threat to the safety of the revolution. Similarly anarchists from the so called Black House in Moscow were repressed when they refused to break with common criminals who masqueraded as anarchists.

Meanwhile many anarchists founght in the Red Army and joined the Communist Party itself. Victor Serge is only the best known of these comrades who were counted in the hundreds.

[dietrite]

Huh? I think it&#39;s more like poor Makhno, damn Trotsky and damn Stalin.

****** slap&#39;s donnie*

[Redvolution]

I understand Trotsky wasn&#39;t an angel. But I think he would have been better than Stalin?

I admit it was an oversimplification, sorry :lol:

[dietrite]

I&#39;m not sure that&#39;s even true, redvolution.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I&#39;m not sure that&#39;s even true, redvolution.

Come on&#33; It would take a hell of a lot to be worse than Stalin...

[redstar2000]

We will never have any way of knowing, of course, but in my opinion, Trotsky would have done the same things as Stalin did...give or take a few corpses here or there.

Indeed, I wouldn&#39;t limit that to just Stalin and Trotsky; I think any of the prominent Bolsheviks of that era would have done the same things. The combination of the Bolshevik paradigm and the objective material conditions in the USSR would have generated very similar behavior no matter who "the great leader" turned out to be.

Trying to "will" a backward country into "socialism" is a bloody business...and, as we have seen, fails in the end.

Of course, if Trotsky had "won out" over Stalin, then we in the "west" would be reading books about "Trotsky the Devil" and how he fucked over that "man of the people, Stalin".

A revolutionary&#39;s road to appreciation in bourgeois circles is to begin by losing...and keep on losing.

That&#39;s what they really like. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[dietrite]

I agree with redstar on that, bastard taking up my battles...

[Roses in the Hospital]

Even if Trotsky had gone the same way as Stalin (which is something you, quite rightly, say we&#39;ll never know) I still can&#39;t see their being the perception of Stalin as &#39;man of the people,&#39; because I doubt he had the skill as a theorist and writer (or even the intellligence) as Trotsky had which allowed him to create that persona for himself...

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:00 PM
We will never have any way of knowing, of course, but in my opinion, Trotsky would have done the same things as Stalin did...give or take a few corpses here or there.

Indeed, I wouldn&#39;t limit that to just Stalin and Trotsky; I think any of the prominent Bolsheviks of that era would have done the same things. The combination of the Bolshevik paradigm and the objective material conditions in the USSR would have generated very similar behavior no matter who "the great leader" turned out to be.

Trying to "will" a backward country into "socialism" is a bloody business...and, as we have seen, fails in the end.

Of course, if Trotsky had "won out" over Stalin, then we in the "west" would be reading books about "Trotsky the Devil" and how he fucked over that "man of the people, Stalin".

A revolutionary&#39;s road to appreciation in bourgeois circles is to begin by losing...and keep on losing.

That&#39;s what they really like. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
In fact we do know what would have happened had the Left Opposition defeated the bureaucratic faction. The idea that the contest was about the personalities of Trotsky and Stalin is an idiocy. We know because it is possible to project developments in both Russia and the Comintern under the leadership of the Left Opposition.

First of all it is possible to project that the disasters of the First Five Year Plan and the famines produced due to the forced collectivsation of agriculture would not have happened. We can also project that the expansion oof industrial capacity would have matched that of the so called Plan with fewer overhard costs due to the undoubtedly chaotic nature of the Plan. The Russian Commune then would have been better able to resist imperialism and democracy within both party and state would have revived as per the program of the Left opposition.

We also know that had the Left Opposition been able to seize leadership of the Comintern that the stupidities of the third Period would not have happened. Hitler and the Nazis would not have come to power. In plain terms the victory of Stalinism in Russia was the prerequisite for the victory of Hitlet in germany.

Think about it. Slowly.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Roses in the Hospital+--> (Roses in the Hospital)I still can&#39;t see there being the perception of Stalin as &#39;man of the people,&#39;...[/b]

But Stalin was a "man of the people"...his father was a poor shoe-maker and his grandparents were serfs.

Most of the "big names" that you&#39;ve heard of in connection with Bolshevism came from very privileged sectors of society -- Lenin&#39;s father was minor nobility, for example.

Joe, by contrast, actually came from very near the bottom of Russian society.

And something that is often overlooked in the efforts to portray Stalin as "the son of the Devil" -- ordinary workers in the USSR were privileged by Stalin -- they had first crack at all the remaining goodies (after the party bureaucracy took their cut).

For example, in Russian higher education, sons and daughters of the party bureaucrats were first in line (naturally)...but next came sons and daughters of industrial workers. (Peasants and ex-bourgeoisie came last.)


jabra nicola
In fact we do know what would have happened had the Left Opposition defeated the bureaucratic faction.

I&#39;m always glad to welcome a new member to the board who has a "crystal ball" that really works.

If you&#39;d be so kind, you could help all of us here at RevLeft if you would let us know something useful -- the winner of the next World Series, the winner of the next Superbowl, etc. We could get our bets down and make a bundle&#33; :D


Think about it. Slowly.

I did...your scenario is complete fantasy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Roses in the Hospital]

In fact we do know what would have happened had the Left Opposition defeated the bureaucratic faction. The idea that the contest was about the personalities of Trotsky and Stalin is an idiocy. We know because it is possible to project developments in both Russia and the Comintern under the leadership of the Left Opposition.

First of all it is possible to project that the disasters of the First Five Year Plan and the famines produced due to the forced collectivsation of agriculture would not have happened. We can also project that the expansion oof industrial capacity would have matched that of the so called Plan with fewer overhard costs due to the undoubtedly chaotic nature of the Plan. The Russian Commune then would have been better able to resist imperialism and democracy within both party and state would have revived as per the program of the Left opposition.

We also know that had the Left Opposition been able to seize leadership of the Comintern that the stupidities of the third Period would not have happened. Hitler and the Nazis would not have come to power. In plain terms the victory of Stalinism in Russia was the prerequisite for the victory of Hitlet in germany.

Think about it. Slowly.

The fallacy you&#39;re commiting is assuminng that what Trotsky and the Left Opposition said they&#39;d do in theory is actually what they&#39;d do in practice, which, as we all know, is something we can never guantee.
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I personally don&#39;t think Trotsky would have done exactly what Stalin did, for example he didn&#39;t have Stalin&#39;s paranoia so their probably wouldn&#39;t have been such extreme purges, similarly I feel Trotsky would have stuck more firmly to internationalist principal, but, assuming, like you do, that he&#39;d act exactly the way he said he would in his books is simply niave...

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 20 2005, 09:18 AM
The fallacy you&#39;re commiting is assuminng that what Trotsky and the Left Opposition said they&#39;d do in theory is actually what they&#39;d do in practice, which, as we all know, is something we can never guantee.
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I personally don&#39;t think Trotsky would have done exactly what Stalin did, for example he didn&#39;t have Stalin&#39;s paranoia so their probably wouldn&#39;t have been such extreme purges, similarly I feel Trotsky would have stuck more firmly to internationalist principal, but, assuming, like you do, that he&#39;d act exactly the way he said he would in his books is simply niave...
No comrade I am not assuming that the Left Opposition would have acted exactly as its program set out. Developments would have forced responses that we cannot guess the nature of from this distance.

What we do know for a fact is that the LO would not have launched the absurd campaign to &#39;collectivse&#39; agriculture and that a more odest investment would have taken place. We also know that in the Comintern the LO would not have adopted the idiocies of the Third Period. These are facts not guesses that are supported by the actions and deeds of the LO and Trotsky until the former was destroyed in the opurges and the latter murdered.

All in all the Russian Commune might have been able to hold out until a succesful revolution in th west could help regenerate it. That possibility was destroyed by the Stalintern for a fact.

Where I think that you are naive is making the struggle in Russia into a contest betwen Trotsky and Stalin. In a sense it matters not a jot whether or not Stalin was a nice man or Trotsky an utter pig. The real point is that they personified two different class forces, on the one hand the greatest of all mediocrities represented that most mediocre of classes the bureaucracy, on the other a man who represented the internationalist program of the proletariat.

It should not escape your notice too that if Trotsky and the LO had wished to act as substitutionist force, as the Stalinist bureaucracy did between 1924 and 19128, then it would have been a matter of ease for them to swing considerable sections of the Red Army behind them in a coup. Trotsky himself was later asked whether this was in fact a possibility and said that it had been but that if they had taken that course then they would have condemned theirselves to acting exactly as did the Stalinist Bonapartism did. In other words Trotsky rejected playing the role of Napoleon contrary to Stalin who had far less support within the Red Army.

[dietrite]

What we do know for a fact is that the LO would not have launched the absurd campaign to &#39;collectivse&#39; agriculture and that a more odest investment would have taken place. We also know that in the Comintern the LO would not have adopted the idiocies of the Third Period. These are facts not guesses that are supported by the actions and deeds of the LO and Trotsky until the former was destroyed in the opurges and the latter murdered

It&#39;s ridiculous to say Trotsky wouldn&#39;t have collectivized, this isn&#39;t some crazy "Stalinist" technique, "comrade".

[romanm]

These Trotskyists can oink on all day to each other..

We have revolutions to run..

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:39 PM
These Trotskyists can oink on all day to each other..

We have revolutions to run..
Yes, and with such a sunny disposition, I can see you going very far...(off a cliff).
I would continue, but I feel that making cracks at Maoists is not very productive.

Anyway, to quote the man (Trotsky) himself:
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."

Also, I&#39;ve been reading about Trotsky, and one thing I&#39;ve constantly stumbled upon, is that he went to the warfronts with his soldiers in his patented ARMOURED TRAIN&#33;™, and actually fought along side them&#33; Incredible&#33; If that was suggested in present times, it would be laughed off&#33; So tell me, if Trotsky did this as a mere Commissar of War, did Stalin do the same when the Nazis were rolling into Russia? Just curious.

[dietrite]

Also, I&#39;ve been reading about Trotsky, and one thing I&#39;ve constantly stumbled upon, is that he went to the warfronts with his soldiers in his patented ARMOURED TRAIN&#33;™, and actually fought along side them&#33; Incredible&#33; If that was suggested in present times, it would be laughed off&#33; So tell me, if Trotsky did this as a mere Commissar of War, did Stalin do the same when the Nazis were rolling into Russia? Just curious.

God...

[comradestephen]

This debate seems to be more of an insult contest now. At any rate yes, Trotsky is all about freedom. The same kind of &#39;freedom&#39; that the bourgeoisie is all about. Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary plain and simple. He attempted to split the Bolshevik party in order to impose his petty-bourgeois line. When he failed and eventually was expelled he spent the rest of his life working very diligently to purvey they very sort of lies that the bourgeois media purveyed about the Soviet Union. He wrote volumes upon volumes attacking socialism and praising himself as the great upholder of true Marxism.

Despite whatever criticisms one can have of Stalin or various things that happened during those years the Soviet Union was still a socialist country, the first in the world. Stalin became a symbol of the socialism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or collectivization and nationalization and of revolution. No wonder he is so well hated by the bourgeoisie who passes down their ideology to the rest of society, especially when we aid them in doing so by playing into their trap, by going along with their revisionist versions of history and so forth as Trotsky did.

Today all over the world &#39;anti-Stalinism&#39; has become the battle cry of all sorts of pretty-bourgeois elements who use it as a cover for their attacks on Leninist principles and concepts such as democratic centralism, the dictatorship of the proletariat and even proletarian revolution.

A revolution is not a tea party and when it comes down to it we need a revolutionary vanguard party, revolutionary theory and the will to protect the workers revolution at all costs otherwise all will be lost.

P.S. Regarding Stalin and WW2. Firstly the fact that Trotsky was rolling around in a train during the civil war means very little. So was Stalin. Was Stalin doing this during WW2? No, to my knowledge he was not. He was instead helping on the leadership and strategy side of things for the most part. During the civil war was Lenin on the front lines? No, nor could he be. Does that mean he was any less a communist? I should think not.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:43 AM
It&#39;s ridiculous to say Trotsky wouldn&#39;t have collectivized, this isn&#39;t some crazy "Stalinist" technique, "comrade".
Unfortunately you either miss the point I was making or simply don&#39;t understand it. I will be so presumptive as to imagine that the error was mine and therefore make another attempt to explain my point again.

To begin I&#39;m not saying that the had the Left Opposition had regained control of the state that they would not have made efforts to collectivise the peasant economy. On the contrary the policy of the Left Opposition was to support voluntary collectivisation by making it an attractive proposition for the peasants by making capital grants to collectives that would enable them to improve their technique through the use of tractors and so forth.

This aim could only be achieved by increasing investment in heavy industry and thereby making more tractors available. But a planned gradual investment not the break neck unplanned capital accumulation of the First Five Year Plan. Such investment had to be relatively gradual as the needed capital had to come from increased taxation of the peasantry and by making concessions to foreign capitalists as Lenin had made concessions to the likes of Armand Hammer. Investment was also intended to be made in luxury goods thereby satisfying some of the demand for such goods on the part of the working class.

by contrast the First Five Year Plan went all out for massive heavy industral projects and collectivisaton. These programs could only be carried out through the use of massive coercion alienating massive sections of both the peasantry and working class from the bureaucratic capitalist class. The result was an unplanned accumulation of capital at the expense not only of the peasantry but the working class too. However it cannot be denied that this Stalinist industrialisation did carry out the centeal purpose of the bourgeopisie in that it enabled the accumulation of capital and, pace Marx, created a massive proletariat that had the potentila (and still does) of voerthrowing the bourgeoisie.

That the Five Year Plan was unplanned will raise eyebrows on these boards no doubt. But even the most cursory examination of the results of the &#39;Plan&#39; shows targets set were never reached in some sectors of the economy and over fulfilled in others. Vastly underachieved or overachieved I note. We are not talking here of a mere 5-10 % margin but of massive disproportionalities. Disporoportionalities very similar to those of the unplanned economies of other developing countries historically speaking.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:55 PM
This debate seems to be more of an insult contest now. At any rate yes, Trotsky is all about freedom. The same kind of &#39;freedom&#39; that the bourgeoisie is all about. Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary plain and simple. He attempted to split the Bolshevik party in order to impose his petty-bourgeois line. When he failed and eventually was expelled he spent the rest of his life working very diligently to purvey they very sort of lies that the bourgeois media purveyed about the Soviet Union. He wrote volumes upon volumes attacking socialism and praising himself as the great upholder of true Marxism. <snip>
Your comments would be more impressive if you had included an argument and proofs rather than the kind of mindless assertions typical of children.

[Lamanov]

I won&#39;t comment the original question, I just wanted to add this:

One of the best lines I&#39;ve read about Trotsky:

"Coming to power with the help of a russified Marxian ideology, Trotsky, after he lost power, had no choice but to maintain the revolutionary ideology in its original form against the degeneration of Marxism indulged in by the Stalinists. He could afford this luxury, for he had escaped the iron consequences of the social system he had helped to bring about. Now he could lead a life of dignity, that is, a life of opposition. "

From Paul Mattick&#39;s &#39;Leon Trotsky&#39;, 1940

[gilhyle]

Trotsky&#39; s finest moment was actually without the train. Can&#39;t remember the details, but basically, Whites advancing on Moscow, Trotsky & Co. go down to a town south of Moscow and send the train away so they can&#39;t easily retreat and just stand and fight. Vencermos o Muerte (pardon my Spanish&#33;)

Always thought it would make a good film Brad Pitt as Trotsky, de Niro as Stalin, Bob Hoskins as the White General, Quentin Tarantino as Lenin (no, maybe not), Kevin Spacey as Makhno.

Trotsky on freedom and democracy...hmmm....gotta be something, somewhere, you&#39;d think ?

But then, Lenin on freedom and democracy.....hmmmm....gotta be something. somewhere ?

Marx on freedom and democracy ..... hmmmm......not much really ....... makes you think, &#39;freedom and democracy&#39; - capitalist crap.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:23 PM
Always thought it would make a good film Brad Pitt as Trotsky
Johnny Depp would be a far better Trotsky.

[Leif]

We&#39;re getting on a tangent, but then again it doesn&#39;t include making insults. Get along kids.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 19 2005, 09:59 PM
Even if Trotsky had gone the same way as Stalin (which is something you, quite rightly, say we&#39;ll never know) I still can&#39;t see their being the perception of Stalin as &#39;man of the people,&#39; because I doubt he had the skill as a theorist and writer (or even the intellligence) as Trotsky had which allowed him to create that persona for himself...
I presume then that you haven&#39;t read much into comrade Stalin&#39;s works. Many of his writings were prominent and contributed to the development of the international communist movement. Most notably his writings on the National question and his expansion on dialectical and historical materialism are extremely profound. His works were followed with great interest and incorporated by communist movements in many countries( discounting trotskyist organizations in western europe).
Stalin was born of a poor family, joined the communist movement at age fifteen, almost killed and exiled to siberia for his communist beliefs. In fact Lenin often praised his dedication and noted stalin&#39;s ability in administration. Trotsky too was talented in administration but as comrade Lenin often pointed out suffered from over-confidence and too much faith in his own abilities.
So the accusation that comrade Stalin lacked intelligence is sheer ignorance, after all it was under his leadership that communism emerged from the shadows and onto the world stage as a potent force.
Again such easily dismissable personality attacks, with absolutely NO factual basis basically sums up the Trotskyite case against Stalin.

[gilhyle]

Johnny Depp ...are you trying to make a serious film ?.....This film is, like 56 and a quarter Days In Peking (Charlton Heston etc)

Anyway, back on track:

"The social democrats, those classical opportunists, expected for a long time that they would succeed in transforming capitalist society by means of a continuous series of social reforms and attain the complete emancipation of the entire proletariat. In reality , the road of social reforms was onlypossible up to a certain point, when the dominant class, frightened by the failure, launched a counter offensive. The struggle cn only be decided by revolution or counterrevolution. The accumulation of democratic reforms in a number of countries has not led to socialism but to fascisim, which has liquidated all the social and political conquests of the past. The same dialectic law is applicable to the libertion struggle of oppressed peoples. Definite conquests that will aid the struggle fort their further independence can be gained in a relatively peaceful manner under certain favourable conditions. But this by nomeans signifies that similar partial conquests will continue without interruption, until complete independence is achieved."

From Ignorance is not a Revolutionary Instrument, P.185, Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1938-39

"Some social democrat publications are trying to find a contradiction between the principles I hold in regard to democracy and my appplication for admission to Germany, i.e. to a democratic republic. There is no contradiction here. We do not at all ‘deny’ democracy as the anarchists ‘deny ‘ it (verbally). Bourgeois democracy has advantages in comparison with the forms of the state that preceded it. But it is not eternal. It must give way to socialist society. And the bridge to socialist society is the dicattorship of the proletariat.

In all capitalist countries, communists take part in the parliamentary struggle. Makng use of the right of asylum does not differ in principle in any way from the utilisation of the right to vot, of freedom of the press and assempbly and so on.

You are interested in my struggle for democracy in the party, the trade unions and the soviets. Social Democratic publicatins have from time to time attempted to protray this as a step toward bourgeois democracy on my part. This is a monumental misunderstanding, the roots of which are not hard to disclose. ……The Social Democracy stands for the restoration of capitalism in Russia. But one can take this road only by pushing the proletarian vanguard into the background and suppressing its independent activity and critical voice…..It is unworthy of a Marxist to speak of democracy « in général ». Democracy has a class content. If a policy aimed at restoring capitalism is what is needed, that that is incompatible with democracy for the ruling proletarian class.

An actual transition back to capitalism could only be secured through the dictatorial power of the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to demand the restoration of capitalism and at the same time to sigh for democracy. That is sheer fantasy."

From Interview Given to the Social Democratic Press 3/24/29

Writings of Leon Trotsky Supplement 1929-33

[Reds]

Trotsky had his personal flaws and i diagree with him on some things but is calling him a counter revolutionary taking it to far.

[YKTMX]

I&#39;m not terribly interested in counterfactuals. Trotsky didn&#39;t come to power, Stalin did. This wasn&#39;t because Stalin was "more cunning", or a better politician, or any of that nonsense. Stalin represented social forces - that is, the bureaucracy - which were on the ascendancy. The LO and Trotsky represented social forces which were materially and ideologically under attack - the working class. What happened in the USSR happened. It didn&#39;t have to happen, but it happened nevetheless.

It developed the way it did mainly because of things outside the Bolsheviks control, so all the talk about the "original sin" of Bolshevism is just White propaganda - that&#39;s obvious.


Now he could lead a life of dignity, that is, a life of opposition

That&#39;s a fucking disgraceful comment. I&#39;d hardly call being chased from your country, having your comrades turn on you, having your whole family being murdered, and yourself exiled and then assassinated, a "life of dignity".

Still, all that stupid comment shows is how Anarchist criticisms of Trotsky and the Bolsheviks are a complete non-starter.

[Poum_1936]

Still, all that stupid comment shows is how Anarchist criticisms of Trotsky and the Bolsheviks are a complete non-starter.

Not quite anarchist, Paul Mattick was a Council-Communist. But they all hate Bolshevism all the same. So the gist of the sentence still stands.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Reds+--> (Reds)Trotsky had his personal flaws and i diagree with him on some things but is calling him a counter revolutionary taking it to far.[/b]

Exactly. That would be taking it too far, regardless of the &#39;mistakes&#39; and his authoritarian attitude in the years of war.
Trotsky, undoubtfully, living in those times was a total revolutionary. Problem is that alot of todays "trotskyists" in infantile immitation of Trotsky and Lenin turn out quite non-revolutionary and sectarian.

Such a waste of potential.


Originally posted by [email protected]
That&#39;s a fucking disgraceful comment. I&#39;d hardly call being chased from your country, having your comrades turn on you, having your whole family being murdered, and yourself exiled and then assassinated, a "life of dignity".

Still, all that stupid comment shows is how Anarchist criticisms of Trotsky and the Bolsheviks are a complete non-starter.

I think you missed the point. It&#39;s much more of a "romanticist" dignity to live a life of oppostion, that to be a Soviet dictator - something that Trotsky would have become if he had replaced Stalin.

Besides, this is not an "anarchist" comment, because Mattick was not an anarchist. If you want to know what&#39;s "anarchist" commenting take a look at this:


gilhyle
Marx on freedom and democracy ..... hmmmm......not much really ....... makes you think, &#39;freedom and democracy&#39; - capitalist crap.

:rolleyes:

[YKTMX]

think you missed the point. It&#39;s much more of a "romanticist" dignity to live a life of oppostion, that to be a Soviet dictator - something that Trotsky would have become if he had replaced Stalin.


As I said, I&#39;m not interested in counterfactuals like this. If Trotsky had replaced Lenin, then the whole situation in the SU would have to had been diffirent, because, as I explained, it wasn&#39;t a "personal" battle. So, for instance, if the German Revolution had been fulfilled, Trotsky probably would have been elected leader.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:24 PM
So, for instance, if the German Revolution had been fulfilled, Trotsky probably would have been elected leader.
If the German revolution had won - it&#39;s a big question on how things would have developed in Russia. It&#39;s quite possible that the establishment of bureaucratic rule would have been reversed if the Soviets have taken the power back from the central institutions, so the soul institution of "elected leader" would not have been so significant as it really was.

But anyway, with the defeat of German proletariat (as it happened) - if Trotsky was "elected leader" instead of Stalin - these are possible scenarios: 1) he would have not acted much different, 2) he would be overthrown, as he wasn&#39;t in accordance with bureaucratic class rule.

Thinking that things would have gone much different ("better") if Trotsky was elected regardless of the heavy historical processes and the total counter-revolutionary upheaval is pure fantasy.

[YKTMX]

Which is what I said.

[gilhyle]

Actually, I think the interesting historical example &#39;if Trotsky had won&#39; is Spain. It seems quite probable that a Spanish Revolution without Stalinist sabotage might have won, that would have opened the gate in Portugal and France.....history would have been very different, for better or for worse. End of hypothetical play.