Trotskyists

[Un-Amäraкin Bastard]

Well? I've seen a lot of Trots bashing, and I was wondering why exactly they are so down-trodden...

[SonofRage]

because people like arguing about the early 1900s on the internet more than actually doing shit.

[Scars]

Because of the Trotsky/Stalin split, mainly. I'd like to add that Trotskites give as much as they take though.

It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance). This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.

[Un-Amäraкin Bastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:53 AM
Because of the Trotsky/Stalin split, mainly. I'd like to add that Trotskites give as much as they take though.

It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance). This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.
I see...a lot of things get that kind of thing...like Islam, or Communism itself...

[Scars]

Originally posted by UnAmäraкin Bastard+Nov 4 2005, 05:54 AM--> (UnAmäraкin Bastard @ Nov 4 2005, 05:54 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 05:53 AM
Because of the Trotsky/Stalin split, mainly. I'd like to add that Trotskites give as much as they take though.

It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance). This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.
I see...a lot of things get that kind of thing...like Islam, or Communism itself... [/b]
Exactly. But really, that sort of thing goes for most factions in the left-= Stalinists are murderous bastards, anarchists are molotov cocktail throwing punks, maoists wear mao suits and carry a copy of the little red book everywhere, Castoists smoke cigars and are urban guerrillas, greenies are pot smoking hippies who spend most of their time hugging trees...and so on.

[Poum_1936]

It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance). This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.

There are nuts in every group. This cannot be denied. As a trot, theres a few groups who I call "crazy." But "crazy" can be found in every stereotype whither it be Maoist, Anarchist, Stalinist, Council Communist, even in Bolshevism and so forth. Hell, I could be called "crazy."

Also, trots get alot shit on this forum is because we are very critical of Stalin. There are full blown Stalinists and many apologists for Stalin on this site, so of course anyone who disagree's is given shit. Not unlike what happened to Trots throughout history.

But there are plenty of threads on trotsky and stalin. Read them and choose your own stance. Wether you think they are both "douchebags" or if one had the better policies over the other. Though, through my own experince, people tend to skip over certain information (i.e. the apologists).

[Un-Amäraкin Bastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:16 AM

It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance). This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.

There are nuts in every group. This cannot be denied. As a trot, theres a few groups who I call "crazy." But "crazy" can be found in every stereotype whither it be Maoist, Anarchist, Stalinist, Council Communist, even in Bolshevism and so forth. Hell, I could be called "crazy."

Also, trots get alot shit on this forum is because we are very critical of Stalin. There are full blown Stalinists and many apologists for Stalin on this site, so of course anyone who disagree's is given shit. Not unlike what happened to Trots throughout history.

But there are plenty of threads on trotsky and stalin. Read them and choose your own stance. Wether you think they are both "douchebags" or if one had the better policies over the other. Though, through my own experince, people tend to skip over certain information (i.e. the apologists).
Hmm, I just got here, so it'll take a few days for me to roam the threads, but I'll look for those...I've generally thought Trotsky was a good guy...

[chebol]

Actually, I've given up smoking. ;-)

[Black Dagger]

because people like arguing about the early 1900s on the internet more than actually doing shit.

No sectarian jabs please! :)



Because of the Trotsky/Stalin split, mainly. I'd like to add that Trotskites give as much as they take though.

The opening sentence didn't bode well for the post. In a thread asserting excessive trot bashing, you go ahead and bash some trots:


It also has to do with the 'reputation' that many Trotskite groups have gained for being incredibly dogmatic, splintering at regular intervals, having founded approx. 3 zillion '4th internationals' and for denoucing anything that moves. In addition to this, some Trotskite groups are decidedly...strange (The Sparts, for instance).

Hmmm, quite an extensive you've got there. You would happened to have used some of the descriptions before?



This doesn't go for all Trotskites by any means, most are perfectly reasonable people, but a minority has earned them a certain 'reputation'.

The closing deflection, 'X is bad because of A B C D E F G, but really X is great please don't flame me!'



Also, trots get alot shit on this forum is because we are very critical of Stalin.

A lot of it - yes.



There are full blown Stalinists and many apologists for Stalin on this site, so of course anyone who disagree's is given shit.

There are some yeah, some apologists too, but not many 'hard up' stalinists.



Actually, I've given up smoking. ;-)

Sectarian jab #3! :)

[black magick hustla]

I don't like trotskyism, however, that is because it is a form of bolshevism.

Trotsky was seen like socialist knight because he was a "communist" that was opposing Stalin. However, he is just another marxist leninist. :(

[More Fire for the People]

My main fault was with Trotsky is that he was a careerist, he'd join whatever organization which would make him seem powerful whether it be the Menshiviks, Bolsheviks, or Left Opposition. My beef with Trotskyists is the "permanent revolution" and reformism.

[Un-Amäraкin Bastard]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 4 2005, 09:25 PM
My main fault was with Trotsky is that he was a careerist, he'd join whatever organization which would make him seem powerful whether it be the Menshiviks, Bolsheviks, or Left Opposition. My beef with Trotskyists is the "permanent revolution" and reformism.
I never really got the jist of "Permanent Revolution"...perhaps someone with better knowlege of Leftism can explain?

[TheComrade]

Stalin was entirely and utterly evil - a physcopath - there is no deniying it! He murdered millions of HIS OWN people - not because he cared about 'equality' but because, as with all leaders, he feared loosing his power. Therefore 'Stalinism' is justifiably considered as evil as he was.

Trotskyism involves perpetual revolution -which is the idea that a communist state should set about triggering communist revolutions throughout the entire world - in all countries (I think, anyway??) Trotsky should have succeeded Lenin - perhaps the world would be different if he had.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:10 PM
Stalin was entirely and utterly evil - a physcopath - there is no deniying it!
There is no proof to suggest that Stalin suffered from any mental dissoder.


He murdered millions of HIS OWN people
The Ukranian famine was caused by the kulaks -- renegade rich peasants -- and the poor farming conditions of pre-Soviet Russia. By the way, Stalin was Georgian not Russian or Ukranian but he most likely did not care about your ethnicity.


- not because he cared about 'equality' but because, as with all leaders, he feared loosing his power. Therefore 'Stalinism' is justifiably considered as evil as he was.
Stalin was recallable at any time during his adminstration, he did not fear losing power -- the soviet people feared that he would lose power.


Trotskyism involves perpetual revolution -which is the idea that a communist state should set about triggering communist revolutions throughout the entire world - in all countries (I think, anyway??) Trotsky should have succeeded Lenin - perhaps the world would be different if he had.
The permanent revolution is forced "revolution" on countries where the material conditions for revolution are not prevailent. Trotsky wanted the Soviet Union to invade Germany and establish an empire!

[Led Zeppelin]

Stalin was recallable at any time during his adminstration

No he wasn't, prove this absurd claim.

And he wasn't directly elected either.

[Scars]

<<The opening sentence didn&#39;t bode well for the post. In a thread asserting excessive trot bashing, you go ahead and bash some trots>>

Yes, I bash some Trotskites, because some Trotskites are idiots/pricks/annoying/ignorant/whatever, just like some Stalinists are idiots/pricks/annoying/ignorant/whatever and some Anarchists are idiots/pricks/annoying/ignorant/whatever and some Maoists are idiots/pricks/annoying/ignorant/whatever. You can&#39;t bash INDIVIDUALS based on their ideology. I do not agree with Trotsky&#39;s theories and as a person, I find Trotsky irritating, arrogant and obnoxious. I don&#39;t particularly like Stalin either, he relied too much on violence, was too paranoid, stunted revolution and made the movement very Soviet-centric. They were both pricks.

As for my statement on Trotskites giving as much as they get- how many books did Trotsky write on why Stalin was a bastard? How many statements did he make that Stalin was a bastard? How many articles have Trotskite groups written about why Stalin was a bastard? I&#39;d say Trotskites bash Stalinists just as much as Stalinists bash Trotskites. Neither of them are &#39;victims&#39;, both are as bad as eachother. The difference is Stalin felt the need to stick an icepick in Trotsky&#39;s head.

<<Hmmm, quite an extensive you&#39;ve got there. You would happened to have used some of the descriptions before?>>

Possibly. Some Trotskites I&#39;ve had contact with have been perfectly nice people. Some I&#39;ve wanted to strangle. I don&#39;t agree with any of them, because I don&#39;t agree with Trotskism as an ideology.

<<The closing deflection, &#39;X is bad because of A B C D E F G, but really X is great please don&#39;t flame me&#33;&#39;>>

Flame me to your little hearts content, I couldn&#39;t care less. I&#39;m making a statement about individuals. You cannot judge individuals based on their ideology. Some will be bastards, some will be great people. I&#39;ve met fascists who have been perfectly reasonable human beings. There is a stereotype that goes with every ideology, these stereotypes are occationally correct, but generally they&#39;re not.

<<Sectarian jab #3&#33;>>

I believe that was a reference to me listing the Castroist stereotypes including cigar smoking. I fail to see how it was a &#39;secterian jab&#39;.

[enigma2517]

Stalin was recallable at any time during his adminstration

Ah yes, the Leninist paradigm becomes more clear to me now ;)

Direct democracy you say...

[Un-Amära&#1082;in Bastard]

Originally posted by Diego Armando
The permanent revolution is forced "revolution" on countries where the material conditions for revolution are not prevailent. Trotsky wanted the Soviet Union to invade Germany and establish an empire&#33;
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I thought he was only hoping he could spark off Communist revolution in Germany by showing the millions of poor Germans what Communism was about; of course in hopes that that would trigger France, Great Britain, and eventually, hopefully, the United States, so that Russia could survive in Communism; as we all know, a backwards state cannot survive alone in Communism...

[Pandii]

I was also wondering the reason for this happening, and this post has.. cleared it up, and also proven something.. that stereotyping really sucks ass.

<rant>You may disagree with an ideaology (and everyone does) but, stereotyping ALL of those that submit to it is really upsetting, especially on a site such as RevLeft&#33; This is the reason that many natives in many nations were slaughtered; because of stereotypes. Its disgusting&#33; Lets get past our indescrepancies and stand together for our cause, DAMNIT&#33; </rant>

On a lighter note.. actually.. no.. no lighter note. Stereotyping really fucking sucks.
Pandora_

[Un-Amära&#1082;in Bastard]

Originally posted by ||PandorA||@Nov 5 2005, 02:54 AM
I was also wondering the reason for this happening, and this post has.. cleared it up, and also proven something.. that stereotyping really sucks ass.

<rant>You may disagree with an ideaology (and everyone does) but, stereotyping ALL of those that submit to it is really upsetting, especially on a site such as RevLeft&#33; This is the reason that many natives in many nations were slaughtered; because of stereotypes. Its disgusting&#33; Lets get past our indescrepancies and stand together for our cause, DAMNIT&#33; </rant>

On a lighter note.. actually.. no.. no lighter note. Stereotyping really fucking sucks.
Pandora_
What we stand for can&#39;t survive with stereotyping if everyone is to be equal...

[Pandii]

What we stand for can&#39;t survive with stereotyping if everyone is to be equal...

I agree :) And its a shame that not many people are willing to band together for the same cause, its sort of self-defeating. Thanks for the topic, Un-Amarakin.
Pandora_

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 4 2005, 11:19 PM
The permanent revolution is forced "revolution" on countries where the material conditions for revolution are not prevailent. Trotsky wanted the Soviet Union to invade Germany and establish an empire&#33;
It was Lenin who wanted to bring revolution "with the bayonets of the Red Army". And if the material conditions for a worker&#39;s revolution were ready anywhere in the world at that time it was in Germany.

[TheComrade]

Diego Armando - If Stalin was as good as you make out to be why did he force his wife to kill herself? Why did he embrasse and humiliate his cabinate every week? I&#39;m sorry - but trying to say that Stalin did not kill millions of Russians simply goes against all historical evidence.

[Socialistpenguin]

Trotsky was seen like socialist knight
Wellll....
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/photo/t1918a.jpg
Found on the picture section of Trotsky on Marxists.org, circa 1918.


My main fault was with Trotsky is that he was a careerist, he&#39;d join whatever organization which would make him seem powerful whether it be the Menshiviks, Bolsheviks, or Left Opposition. My beef with Trotskyists is the "permanent revolution" and reformism.

1. Can you prove that he was a careerist, and wasn&#39;t trying to safeguard the revolution from bureaucracy when he took to the Left Opposition? Also, Lenin himself said that Trotsky&#39;s Menshiviki past should not be held against him, so why do you persist?
2. How on earth can you call Trotsky a careerist, when Stalin was the biggest one of the lot? He took the position of General Secretary and filled it with those who toed the same line as him, so he would always have support. Then, when the Left Opposition proposed the Five Year Plans, they were ridiculed for being "big industrialisers". After they were expelled, Stalin took THEIR platform when it was convenient for him, to use against the Right Opposition. Next, when the Second World War was on, he wound up the Comintern, in order to appease his Western counterparts, and to make sure that he didn&#39;t get hit with a big stick.
3. "Reformism"? HAH


Ah yes, the Leninist paradigm becomes more clear to me now wink.gif

Direct democracy you say... Ah, excellent generalisation&#33;
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/iseewhatyoudidthere-41997.jpg


The Ukranian famine was caused by the kulaks -- renegade rich peasants -- and the poor farming conditions of pre-Soviet Russia. :blink: :blink: :angry: >WHAM< ow....Much better.
Please, PROVIDE ME PROOF, that the kulaks were to blame for all of the peasantry&#39;s problems&#33; Prove to me, that the ordinary peasants didn&#39;t burn crops and kill their livestock, just to fight against the appaling conditions given to them under "Comrade" Stalin&#33;

[Led Zeppelin]

Diego Armando - If Stalin was as good as you make out to be why did he force his wife to kill herself? Why did he embrasse and humiliate his cabinate every week?

Simple, he didn&#39;t, where do you people get this stuff?

Provide sources before you make claims.

[TheComrade]

At the funeral of Stalin&#39;s second wife - Stalin said &#39;she died an enemy.&#39; - She commited suicide because of him - "leaving a suicide note which according to their daughter was "partly personal, partly political""

Yakov served in the Red Army and was captured by the Nazis. They offered to exchange him for a German officer, but Stalin turned the offer down, allegedly saying "I have no son named Yakov," Most of this is from books - some from Wikipedia, which I dearly trust (heavy moderation etc.)

What exactly were the &#39;Great Purges&#39; if they weren&#39;t murder and extermination?

[Led Zeppelin]

At the funeral of Stalin&#39;s second wife - Stalin said &#39;she died an enemy.&#39; - She commited suicide because of him - "leaving a suicide note which according to their daughter was "partly personal, partly political""


Wow, great source you have there, oh wait, there is none.


Yakov served in the Red Army and was captured by the Nazis. They offered to exchange him for a German officer, but Stalin turned the offer down, allegedly saying "I have no son named Yakov," Most of this is from books - some from Wikipedia, which I dearly trust (heavy moderation etc.)


See above.


What exactly were the &#39;Great Purges&#39; if they weren&#39;t murder and extermination?

Who said they weren&#39;t murder? What the hell else would you call it?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 4 2005, 07:19 PM

Stalin was recallable at any time during his adminstration

No he wasn&#39;t, prove this absurd claim.

And he wasn&#39;t directly elected either.
1936 Constitution - Chp. XI

Article 142. It is the duty of every deputy to report to his electors on his work and on the work of the Soviet of Working People&#39;s Deputies, and he is liable to be recalled at any time in the manner established by law upon decision of a majority of the electors.

1918 Constitution - Chp. XV

Article 78. The electors who have sent a deputy to the Soviet have the right to recall him at any time, and to hold new elections, in keeping with the general rules.

[Led Zeppelin]

Stalin was not a "deputy", CC members were not "deputies", they were not elected and could not be recalled.

[celticfire]

Marxism-Leninism: Really? I thought the CC was elected during Lenin&#39;s time, but then got "elected" (controlled) by Stalinist leadership after the ousting of all the opposition. I&#39;ve read a lot of the Menshevik complaints that Lenin was elected by the Soviets...so it stands to me he was elected?

[Led Zeppelin]

Really? I thought the CC was elected during Lenin&#39;s time, but then got "elected" (controlled) by Stalinist leadership after the ousting of all the opposition. I&#39;ve read a lot of the Menshevik complaints that Lenin was elected by the Soviets...so it stands to me he was elected?

First of all that is not true, secondly even if it was it&#39;s a shit excuse, since CC members should not be elected only once, Hitler also get elected "only once".

[TheComrade]

I think it&#39;s sick and twisted than anyone could attempt to defend Stalin and the acts he committed. I am too inexperienced to quote texts to you - but be assured there is hard evidence that Stalin did the things I have said - besides where is the evidence to counter COMMON KNOWLEDGE?

[Led Zeppelin]

That was not common knowledge, that was pulled out of your ass.

[TheComrade]

Right well we know who has the moral and intellectual high ground here - when you use phrases like that.

[Led Zeppelin]

You can&#39;t even spell intellectual, and yet you claim to have the intellectual "high ground"?

[viva le revolution]

If it&#39;s so common, why not have a coherent debate on Stalin instead of mere character assasination.

[TheComrade]

Marxism-Leninism - it&#39;s an easy mistake especially with all these ideas coarsing through my mind.

viva le revolution - I aggree and I apologise. I have turned this Trotsky thread into an anti-stalin thread - not that I retract any of my statements, just not the right place.