what would it have been like without Stalin

[dragonoverlord]

Stalin and this guy Trosky were both in the revoloution together and when Lenin was near death and died they were competing for the leadership of Russia and Stalin won and Trosky was killed with a Ice pick but what kind of person was Trosky and what would the Soviet Union have been like and how would it have effected the Russian Federation or without Stalin would there still be a Soviet Union.
I know Trosky wrote books to but i think they were destroyed and if any remain can someone recomend me some to look up in the libary possibly.

[Poum_1936]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

Has alot of Trotsky's writings.

Alot of people see the fued between Stalin and Trotsky as all pesonal but this is hardly true. Stalin was just a product of the group he represented, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was already throughly entrenched within the Soviet government by the time of Lenin's death. The bureauracy would have just found another front man.

Check out Trotsky's "How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...35/1935-sta.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-sta.htm)

Though it is possible if Stalin's stupid foriegn policy was not put into practice, other revolutions could have flourished. Thus leaving the revolution in state of non isolation. China, Germany, Spain all had potential, but stupid policies drowned the revolutions in blood and fascism. And if these revolutions established revolutionary government this could have brought back the revolutionary spirit of the masses in Russia and could have brought about a political revolution. But this is all "what if's."

[Poum_1936]

This also might be of some interest to you. A short bio on Trotsky.

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

[BuyOurEverything]

what would the Soviet Union have been like

It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:34 AM

what would the Soviet Union have been like

It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.
I'm not so sure. Obviously we don't know what Trotsky would have done but his economic ideals weren't all that far removed from Stalin's. You also have to factor in that Trotsky was a highly capable general and there would've been no paraniod purges of the Red Army. As for moving industry away from the border, Stalin only did that after the panzers had crossed it, despite all the warnings of invasion.

Like I said, we'll never know but its not a matter of simple defeat without Stalin.

[dragonoverlord]

thanks for your perspectives i liked that link that took me to the philospy of british capitalism it was a good read.

[Dimentio]

In fact, both Stalin and Trotsky did before 1918-19 and the defeat of the revolutions in Europe advocate international revolution, as well as both of them after that set of events propagated for "socialism in one country".

Trotsky had only one major disadvantage, the unability to cloud his mind.

[bolshevik butcher]

The point about the chiense nad spannish reovlutions. Stlain might well have delibrately stiffered them, he didnt want to see real socialism evolving, that might well have awoaken the russian massess as to what socislaism should be. A socialist government would have been a threat to stalin's power.

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:34 AM

what would the Soviet Union have been like

It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.
Although I am by no means a Trotskyist, it is only fair to recognize that Stalin got inspired by the Left Opposition in economic terms, such as the five year plans and the collectivisation of agriculture.

I think the most important critisisms against Stalin can be made on these terms.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:34 PM
It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.
And the "great man" theory of history returns, destroying 150 years of work attempting to lift history out of the realm of myth and legend and into the realm of science.

Wow. In one post, you blew up Marx :lol:

It's quite clear this assumption can't be made. It wasn't Stalin who industrialized the Soviet Union, it was the directed economy. All evidence points to the idea that in fact a more coherent leadership would have better industrialized the Soviet Union, with less cost to human life, as well as resources.

Furthermore, coherent, workingclass-oriented leadership would have sunk its resources into Germany when the KPD was engaged in street battles, perhaps pushing the rise of a German Soviet Republic and cutting off Hitler completely!

[Led Zeppelin]

It wasn't Stalin who industrialized the Soviet Union, it was the directed economy.

This could be true, but it isn't.

Pre-Stalin the directed economy didn't industrialize, post-Stalin the directed economy didn't industrialize (to the extent it industrialized under Stalin), it's just simple historical analysis.

It's not a coincidence that the economy expanded to great lengths under Stalin's leadership.

[Poum_1936]

It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily.

"[These] fortifications were to have reliably shielded the deployment of assault groups and repelled any attempts by the enemy to break up the deployment. When the army attacked, the fortified areas were to have supported the troops with firepower. Instead, our western fortified areas did not fulfil any of these tasks. They were blown up without having fired once at the enemy.

"I do not know how future historians will explain this crime against our people. Contemporary historians ignore it. I cannot offer an explanation myself. The Soviet government squeezed billions of roubles (by my calculations not less than 120 billion) out of the people to construct impregnable fortifications along the entire western boundary from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Then, right before the war in the spring of 1941, powerful explosions thundered along the entire 1,200-kilometre length of these fortifications. On Stalin's personal orders reinforced concrete caponiers and semicaponiers, fortifications with one, two, or three embrasures, command and observation posts--tens of thousands of permanent fortifications--were blown into the air. No better gift could have been given to Hitler's Barbarossa plan."

-Former General Grigorenko

After a good ass kicking by the Germans did Uncle Joe moved industry. It was also Stalin's "good-faith" attempts with Hitler which nearly had us all speaking German. Shame on Mr. Stalin. Hoorah for the 25 millions who died and hoorah for the valaint resistance of the Soviet people.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Oct 21 2005, 01:52 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Oct 21 2005, 01:52 AM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 10:34 PM
It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.
And the "great man" theory of history returns, destroying 150 years of work attempting to lift history out of the realm of myth and legend and into the realm of science. [/b]
Thank you!

Spared me the efforts in attempting to say the same thing.

With different leaderships, the details would have been differnet, but either way both were dictated by what history demanded of them.

[TC]

I would honustly guess that if Trotsky came to power instead of Stalin, Trotsky would have dealt with the necessities of industrialization and preperation for war with the Fascists in a similar manner that Stalin did. Stalin's government saved the world from German Fascisms and Japanese imperialism, but Stalin was not uniquely qualified, he was simply the head of state at the time, another Soviet leader could have gotten the same results. Its silly to think that the head of state is responsible him or herself for the success of a country when they have dozens of advisors and cabinet members (in this case People's Commisars) who have their own areas of responsibility and then the thousands of people who make it work on each level...if Trotsky had the same staff his government would have probably reacted the same way.

If anything Trotsky may have been in a better position because he was an experianced military leader whereas Stalin was not.

On the other hand Trotsky didn't take a very realist approach to diplomacy such as in rejecting the peace treaty with Germany in WWI when the Soviet Union was at a clear disadvantage, forcing the Soviets to later sign the much less generous Brest-Litovsk. Perhaps he would have refused the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in a similar way resulting in a Nazi invasion in 1939 instead of 1941...meaning that the Soviet Union would have been even less well prepaired and might have had even greater losses.

But its a bad idea to attribute too much to individual leaders when decisions are useually made on an institutional level...not to suggest historical determinism, just to say that leaders are never really independent of their governments and ruling classes.

[BuyOurEverything]

I only say this because Russia came so close to defeat in WWII, anything less than what Stalin did would most likely have been insufficient. In theory, I generally support Trotsky's theories over those of Stalin, but this was a special historical case. Trotsky focused too much on world revolution, and while generally this is a positive thing, and necessary to create a communist society, if any resources had been diverted from the war effort, there would have been no soviet union to help spread revolution at all.

And CyM: That has nothing to do with the great man theory. If Trotsky had won the struggle for the leadership of the party, he would have taken it in a different direction. How does that contradict Marx? Obviously, it wasn't Stalin that singlehandedly defeated the Nazi invasion, but had he not been in a leadership role, the country would not have been prepared for an attack.


It was also Stalin's "good-faith" attempts with Hitler which nearly had us all speaking German. Shame on Mr. Stalin

Oh come on, nobody outside of a high school history class actually believes Stalin liked, admired, or trusted Hitler, or signed a pact with him for any other reason than to buy time to build up his military.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:46 PM
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

Has alot of Trotsky's writings.

Alot of people see the fued between Stalin and Trotsky as all pesonal but this is hardly true. Stalin was just a product of the group he represented, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy was already throughly entrenched within the Soviet government by the time of Lenin's death. The bureauracy would have just found another front man.

Check out Trotsky's "How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...35/1935-sta.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-sta.htm)

Though it is possible if Stalin's stupid foriegn policy was not put into practice, other revolutions could have flourished. Thus leaving the revolution in state of non isolation. China, Germany, Spain all had potential, but stupid policies drowned the revolutions in blood and fascism. And if these revolutions established revolutionary government this could have brought back the revolutionary spirit of the masses in Russia and could have brought about a political revolution. But this is all "what if's."
This is true. The "historians" these days don't even know anything about the role of the individual in history.

I would also recommend reading from Chapter 5 of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed, The Soviet Thermidor. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...ch05.htm#ch05-1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/ch05.htm#ch05-1)

[Coggeh]

i think that Russia would have collapsed! without the industrialization that occoured the Russian people in all their glory would not have been able to stop the Facist invaders of Nazi Germany .Trotsky cared more about his people than Stalin did but even tho that mite sound harsh or a make a good point on Trotsky Stalin had more pride in Communism and thats what matters to me the ends justify the means! :blink:

[spartafc]

Trotsky's point - as I understand it - wasn't about how "left" or "right" the policys of Stalin were - but rather that the position of isolated revolution was untenible. The logical extention of Stalin's corruption of workers control and anti-leninist "socialism in one country" meant the supression of workers movements across the world - such as that in Hungary. Trotsky would have rejected this position and the logical practical implications of it - and instead fought for real global workers democracy to help spread the revolution - instead of crushing its various manifestations.

[DisIllusion]

I believe that if Trotsky came to power, Communism would be much more widely accepted in the western world. Stalin is one of the main reasons why people think Communism is all about dictators and borderline facism. But you could bring up how Trotsky would have handled the crisis of WWII. I really can't imagine what would have happened if Trotsky had handled the situation.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:23 AM
I believe that if Trotsky came to power, Communism would be much more widely accepted in the western world. Stalin is one of the main reasons why people think Communism is all about dictators and borderline facism. But you could bring up how Trotsky would have handled the crisis of WWII. I really can't imagine what would have happened if Trotsky had handled the situation.
The Western governments had been spreading propaganda about communism since 1917 (which came back to bite them in Adolf). That would hardly have changed with Trotsky in charge. Stalin just gave the more "serious" observers the chance to profit from the smear campaign. That's not to say of course that Stalin didn't deserve the criticism.

As for WWII, both Trotsky and Stalin broadly shared the same economic ideals so I wouldn't be surprised if the five year plans took place anyway. Trotsky was the hero of the Revolution and be all accounts a very capable general. And while "what if" questions are impossible to answer correctly, I'd bet that Trotsky wouldn't have been so blind to Hitler's attack.

[Poum_1936]

I'd bet that Trotsky wouldn't have been so blind to Hitler's attack.

Not to mention the consquences of purging of the military.

[spartafc]

I'd bet that Trotsky wouldn't have been so blind to Hitler's attack.


Not to mention the consquences of purging of the military.

or the disastrous Stalinist policy of 'social fascism' in Germany.

[Xvall]

Stalin and this guy Trosky were both in the revoloution together and when Lenin was near death and died they were competing for the leadership of Russia and Stalin won and Trosky was killed with a Ice pick but what kind of person was Trosky and what would the Soviet Union have been like and how would it have effected the Russian Federation or without Stalin would there still be a Soviet Union.

I would hope they would use punctuation. Just fucking with you. I honestly don't know, and I don't think anyone can say for sure. More importantly? Who cares? What if Stalin became a porn star instead of Soviet Premier?

[DisIllusion]

I would hope they would use punctuation. Just fucking with you. I honestly don't know, and I don't think anyone can say for sure. More importantly? Who cares? What if Stalin became a porn star instead of Soviet Premier?

I'd buy that porno.

[Xvall]

Papa Joe will show you some real dicktatorship.

[CommieTommy]

I think that Trotsky would have been great. Moderinization would have taken decades in Russia if he came to power, but the revolution would have been saved, and there is a possibility that a revolution would have breaked out across Europe and Russia would of supported them. You see, Hungaria had a very large prolateriat insurgency that was put down by Western Aid. In Germany, 1921-1925, people's revolts broke out in the city streets and even a Bavarian people's republic was created in 1918, at the same time of the Spartakist rising. In Bulgaria, Romania, even Poland there was people's revolts in the late 20s and early 30s, with not even one bit of Soviet Aid. Conservative goverments rose to power in Easteren Europe and communist rebels rose up by the masses, but with no international support. Stalin was busy with his " socialism in one state" But then again, if this international revolution was supported by the soviets, we might not have seen a adolf hitler, we might not have a captilist Europe anymore. But Stalins freindship with the west stopped any federal support to communist groups.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:50 AM

what would the Soviet Union have been like

It wouldn't have existed. Without Stalin's massive industrialization drives and his moving the industry away from the border, the Nazis would have taken the Soviet Union easily. Also, without a two front war, we'd all probably be speaking German right now.
actually, trotksy could see the rise of facism in germany, and called for a united front. unfortunately, trotsky had been exiled and ostracised by then, so his calls were in vain.

[viva le revolution]

What kind of debate is this? Talk about reality. Trotsky was no socialist white knight. Both had flaws which Lenin of course commented on before his death. Both were geniuses at administration. Stalin according to Lenin was a little too blunt with other comrades, whereas Trotsky suffered from massive over-confidence.
Both gave up a lot for the revolution and were extremely active in it. However, it cannot be denied that under Stalin's leadership Russia's industrial growth exploded, collectivization made it possible to build up and prepare for battle with nazi germany.
Stalin was more of a realist, the support given to various communist movements worldwide under stalin is proof of that. However Trotsky was more of a idealist, believing in a mythic"sweep of the world", which history has proven is not possible. However Trotsky played a negative role, often calling for the demolition of the very revolution he was part of. Calling on numerous occassions for the dismantling of the soviet union. Trotskyite groups have also played a negative role, especially nowadays. Most, if not all, are social-democratic movements. Trotskyite groups jeopardized the war effort against germany by calling numerous strikes when industry was needed most., often taking up out-landish positions, such as the charge that fidel had che murdered etc. etc.
In my opinion, Stalin was a much better choice than Trotsky. Because material conditions demanded realism at that point.

[Janus]

Leon Trotsky was more indoctrinated than Stalin. With Trotsky, everything had to be interpreted with a Marxist-Leninst viewpoint. I'm not saying that this is wrong but that Stalin was able to win because he was much more pragmatic than Trotsky and understood the importance of gaining political allies. By the time Trotsky and his supporters realized this it was too late, and Trotsky was exiled by Stalin.

I suppose that Trotsky may have continued Lenin's New Economic Policy but he definitely would've instated an actual communist economic policy like Stalin in the Second World War. However, I believe that the USSR would've fared much better under the leadership of Trotsky because he wouldn't have been as trusting of Hitler as Stalin had. Also, Trotsky wasn't necessarily a great general but a great organizer; he left actual military comand to more experienced generals.

[viva le revolution]

Trotsky was a marxist-leninist? really?
1.in the paper run by trotsky, viprod, he constantly argued with lenin. the faction headed by trotsky believed a revolution in russia will be conducted purely by workers whereas lenin argued for a worker-peasant alliance.
2. lenin's theory of uninterrupted revolution was much different than trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. Trotsky wanted to wait until a grand sweep of revolutions overtook the world, whereas lenin was much closer to socialism in one country theory, in the sense that he began building socialism in russia. even in his theory he states that one state at a time will come over to socialism, instead of trotsky's theory of simoultaneous revolutions and ignorance of differing levels of capitalist development and class consciousness in various states.
3. Trotsky claimed that russia could not survive unless western european states(germany in particular) had revolutions of their own. lenin differed from this view insisting that russia could survive on it's own. This was proved by russia withstanding invasion by the multiple imperialist invasion, fascist invasion and the uprising by the white army. Eventually russia succumbed when khruschev abandoned Stalin's five-year model centered around industries producing consumer goods subsidizing industries producing capital goods, and capital goods in turn increasing productivity and output of consumer indutry, the death knell was however delivered by gorbachev, with his policy of pretroika, which led to the re-introduction of capitalism. Was this then a failure of marxism-leninism, as foretold by Trotsky or flouted around nowadays, absolutely not!

4. the fourth point, not so much is trotsky himself as much as trotskyite organizations in the first world, which continually dismiss third world revolutions and do not support it, with the exception of cuba and nicaragua. Not because they relate to a different sort of marxism-leninism, but because they are the only ones who have not defended stalin.

5. Thus it could be concluded that trotsky's essesntial point is that unless a revolution takes place in the first world there is no hope in the third world, they may as well go to hell. but the essential question here is then why in the world did trotsky participate in a third world revolution himself? quite inconsistent with all that he wrote and advocated. So the point that he was beeter indoctrinated in marxism-leninism is completely false.





4.

[Janus]

I meant to say that Trotsky was more of a Marxist than Stalin, his view was too centered around communism. I only said Marxist-Leninism because some of Trotsky's views were similar to Lenin's which is why he joined Lenin's party. The important thing is that Stalin was much more of a pragmatist than Trotsky as a result of his upbringing and that is the reason why he won out.

[Hiero]

Have you read any Stalin? Read 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR' by Stalin. Then you will realise how much Stalin relies on Marx and Engels.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 19 2005, 09:38 PM
Trotsky was a marxist-leninist? really?
1....
2.....
3. .....

4. .....

5. Thus it could be concluded that trotsky's essesntial point is that unless a revolution takes place in the first world there is no hope in the third world, they may as well go to hell. but the essential question here is then why in the world did trotsky participate in a third world revolution himself? quite inconsistent with all that he wrote and advocated. .....


Yeah, weird that isn't it ?

Totally inconsistent of befuddled old Trotsky. You'd think he would have spotted that, wouldn't you.....kind of obvious really when you think about .....and he did have a long time to think about it.

In fact such patent, simplistic inconsistency is quite uncharactertaristic of a man who - whatever else - always had an articulate answer to everything.

Heh, here is a thought...probably wrong, but ah what the hell, I'll run it up the flag poll and see if there is a Stal in sight who might salute ... O.K, here goes: the inconsistency might derive from your version of what Trotsky thought being inaccurate.

I know its a wild idea, I know its unlikely, but give it a minute, you might warm to it. Think about it.

WHile your are doing it, turn your portrait of Old Joe to the wall so he doesn't see - cos if he sees you, he'll know what you are thinking.