The Truth about trotsky

[viva le revolution]

The article presented below was written by Comrade Krupskaya( wife of Comrade Lenin). After reading this article it should become clear to the reader, that the argument presented by the Trotskyists, that Krupskaya was “anti-Stalin” is purely based on an entirely paradigmatic slander against one of the greatest Marxist-Leninists-J.V Stalin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








The Slander Drive of the Second International

“Why the second international takes Trotsky under its protection”

N.Krupskaya


The Trotskyists and Zinovievists did not concern themselves with the fate of the masses. All they cared about was how they could seize power, even if it should be with the aid of the German State Secret Police and of the most savage enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, anxious to restore the bourgeois state of society and the capitalist exploitation of the toiling masses in the land of the Soviets.

It is not by accident that Trotsky, who never grasped the essential character of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and never understood the part played by the masses in the building up of Socialism, Trotsky, who believed that Socialism could be built on orders from above, should have turned to the path of organizing terrorist acts against Stalin, Voroshilov, and other members of the Political Bureau who are helping the masses to build up Socialism.

It was not due to chance that the unscrupulous bloc around Kamenev and Zinoviev went together with Trotsky, step by step, down to the abyss of bottomless treachery towards the cause of Lenin, the cause of the toiling masses, the cause of Socialism.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and their whole band of murderers, worked hand in hand with German fascism, and formed an alliance with the German State Secret Police. Hence the unanimity of the whole country in the demand: These mad dogs must be shot! They wanted to sow confusion in the masses. They wanted to shoot Comrade Stalin, the heart and brain of the revolution. They failed. The miserable band of scoundrels have been shot. The masses are gathering more closely than ever around the C.C; their allegiance to Stalin is stronger than before.

Nor is it accidental that the Second International behaves as if it had gone mad, hastens to shield the Trotsky-Zinoviev murder band, and endeavours to break up the People’s Front. De Brouckere, Citrine, and their companions, condone every villainy committed by the foes of the working class of the Soviet Union, against its Party and leaders. In the anti-Soviet howl raised by the bourgeois world, the voice of the Second international is the loudest. The third international was born in the struggle with the second international. With the aid of the renegades, Kautsky and his companions, the Second International carried on a savage slander drive against the dictatorship of the proletariat, against the Soviet power. The Second International endeavours to extenuate and defeat the capitalist order and to throw sand in the eyes of the toiling masses. Therefore it now backs up the German State Secret Police agent, Trotsky. But the attempt has been a failure. Our Soviet land has become a powerful land, and raises ever higher the banner of Communism. With firm footsteps it advances steadily on the path indicated by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Neither the Trotskyists, nor the adherents of Zinoviev, nor the Second International, will succeed in hiding the fact and in throwing sand in the eyes of the masses. The strained situation on the international front and the threatening war danger will increase the watchfulness of the workers and increase and strengthen the People’s Front of the toiling masses of the whole world.
‘International Press Correspondence’, 12th September 1936, Volume 16, No 42, p.1162

[dannie]

so where are the facts in that peace??

this is just plain propaganda and a waste of my time

[viva le revolution]

I haven't wrote that.
It was written by Comrade Lenin's wife, comrade N. Krupskaya, Y'know the one who was against Stalin!
Unless of course you dismiss an article written by one of Trotsky's supposedly ardent supporters as stalinist propaganda! :lol:

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 23 2005, 05:29 PM
I haven't wrote that.
It was written by Comrade Lenin's wife, comrade N. Krupskaya, Y'know the one who was against Stalin!
Unless of course you dismiss an article written by one of Trotsky's supposedly ardent supporters as stalinist propaganda! :lol:
Hold on a minute, was this the same Krupskaya, who was boorishly insulted by Stalin, as well as being threatened by him with the phrase, "We can always find a new wife for Lenin"? Was it the same Krupskaya, who, along with various others, were isolated politically in the Party? And would this "social-fascism" be the same one that was disproved as an invalid and vitriolic attack on Bolsehvik-Leninism? Also, the entire article reeks of fear, she seems desparate to avoid something.
Finally, there is heavy mention of "the Second International". This is most puzzling. The Second International disbanded years before Trotsky rose to a threat to Stalin: how could the Second International "take him under their protection"?

[viva le revolution]

:"Also, the entire article reeks of fear, she seems desparate to avoid something"
Nice touch! elementary my dear watson, she ain't no Trotskyite!

[Bolshevist]

The whole ting sounds similar to the 'confessions' made by other prominent Bolshevists during the Moscow Trails.. I am sure it is some sort of insurance against being victim of the Stalinist consolidation of power...

When was it written?

[viva le revolution]

LOL this is rich!
You Trots accept western propaganda wholehartedly but when it comes to an unflaterring article on Trotsky by a supposed supporter then the speculation comes out like out of something from NYPD blue!
It seems that sensationalism and subjective speculation is an art exclusive to Trotskyites! and you blame us for ignoring and disregarding history! :lol:

BTW. the dates and even the page number is at the bottom of the original post.

[dannie]

who said i'm a trot?? Well, i am not, but this article doesn't prove anything,
and no, this being written by lenin's wife is not a valid argument to me, for all i know, she was on coke while she wrote this

[Reds]

If trotsky was allied with german fascism why then did he tell his supporters to side with the soviet union aginst imperialism.

[Bolshevist]

This was written in September 1936, when the NKVD was headed by Nikolai Yezhov - At the height of the great purges.

This is nothing but a personal insurance against being a victim, nothing to be taken seriously. You actually think the life-long companion of Lenin would voluntarily write such a lousy article, stipped of any important content?

This thread should be left to itself so it can die, for this article represents nothing of value to Marxists...

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:06 PM
If trotsky was allied with german fascism why then did he tell his supporters to side with the soviet union aginst imperialism.
Was this AFTER or BEFORE the USSR was invaded?
And a source would be nice too...

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:23 PM



This thread should be left to itself so it can die, for this article represents nothing of value to Marxists...
It has everything to do with Marxism. This was written by comrade Lenin's wife. The very same which Trotsky claimed supported him and the Bukharin-Zinoviev band. However this article is an ample indicator that points out that Comrade Krupskaya was in fact supporting Stalin. Therefore rending the spiced-up version of events narrated by Trotsky as null and vod of any backing. I wonder what else he lied about...... :unsure:
This article should lead communists, particularly Trotskyites, if they are truly marxists, to question this and corroborate it with their version of events. The best rebuttal so far has been nothing but speculation and a call to ignore this thread. Not a good indicator of Trotsky's ideological backing.....

[Atlas Swallowed]

If she wrote an anti-Stalin letter while Stalin was in power, she might as well put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger. Stalin had millions of people executed, she and everyone else in the USSR at the time had plenty to fear. The letter should be taken for what it probably was, life insurance.

[viva le revolution]

Nice to see that the originality of the previous attempts to disregard the article are not lost. :lol:

[gilhyle]

Of course, you cant even prove she wrote it. This is all incredibly childish.

[Socialistpenguin]

Was this AFTER or BEFORE the USSR was invaded?
And a source would be nice too...
To quote the Transitional Programme:
But not all countries of the world are imperialist countries. On the contrary, the majority are victims of imperialism. Some of the colonial or semi colonial countries will undoubtedly attempt to utilize the war in order to east off the yoke of slavery. Their war will be not imperialist but liberating. It will be the duty of the international proletariat to aid the oppressed countries in their war against oppressors. The same duty applies in regard to aiding the USSR, or whatever other workers’ government might arise before the war or during the war. The defeat of every imperialist government in the struggle with the workers’ state or with a colonial country is the lesser evil.

And, if we are to take a section of the Fourth International, the British section, and look at their programme, we see, "International Policy: 11.Unconditional defence of the Soviet Union against all imperialist Powers; despatch of arms, food and essential materials to the Soviet Union under the control of the Trade Unions and Factory Committees.".
Also, it would probably be before the USSR was invaded, seeing as how the Transitional Programme was drawn up in 1938, and Trotsky was assassinated in 1940.


It has everything to do with Marxism. This was written by comrade Lenin's wife. The very same which Trotsky claimed supported him and the Bukharin-Zinoviev band. However this article is an ample indicator that points out that Comrade Krupskaya was in fact supporting Stalin. Therefore rending the spiced-up version of events narrated by Trotsky as null and vod of any backing. I wonder what else he lied about...... unsure.gif
This article should lead communists, particularly Trotskyites, if they are truly marxists, to question this and corroborate it with their version of events. The best rebuttal so far has been nothing but speculation and a call to ignore this thread. Not a good indicator of Trotsky's ideological backing..... This section of text is so full of demagoguery and bile, it is hard to decipher. And you have yet to address my previous points. Also, do you think it not trite, to call Krupskaya, "Comrade" Krupskaya, considering Stalin called her a "syphilitic whore"? I do not take one isolated article as proof of Trotsky's "counter-revolutionary attitude", as you seem so keen on doing. He couldn't give a shit about either Bukharin or Zinoviev, once they "recanted" and rolled over for Master Joe. He set up the 4th International, while Stalin closed the 3rd to appease his Western masters.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 24 2005, 07:58 AM
Nice to see that the originality of the previous attempts to disregard the article are not lost. :lol:
No, I was being objective. Since I am not a Communist and neither a Stalinist or a Trotskyist I have nothing to gain. You think this letter proves some point but it proves little if anything.

[viva le revolution]

Oh but it was not the only one. Another was written by comrade krupskaya, titled two tracts of trotsky written in may 1925, also critical of Trotsky and in support of stalin. However i am locating it online. Will post it as soon as possible. That should at least put an end to the 'reeks of fear" bullshit.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:27 PM
Of course, you cant even prove she wrote it. This is all incredibly childish.
Umm...the source is posted at the bottom even the damn page number!

[Atlas Swallowed]

It must suck going through life defending a long dead dictator. Stalin was a totaltarian, paranoid psychopath deal with it. He used communism to feed his addiction to power. Would the USSR have been better under Trotsky is unknown , but the fact is Stalin was a Totalatarian peice of shit.

[bezdomni]

It's not exactly news that Lenin's wife was a supporter and friend of Stalin, but this doesn't say anything about the character of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky...it is merely her opinion on Trotsky. Lenin and his wife had disagreements, just like Lenin and Trotsky had disagreements and Lenin and Stalin had disagreements.

I suggest you read Lenin's last Testament and see who he recommends for General Secretary of the Soviet Union and why. (I'll give you a hint, it's not "dear comrade Stalin"). Unless you think Lenin, too, was a "brain-rotten murderous trot", or whatever the hell you like to call us these days.

Trotsky did more for the Soviet Union in his brief time there (before dear comrade Stalin made him go elsewhere) than Stalin did in his entire time as "general secretary", although he bastardized that position to such a degree that it would be quite acceptable to call it a dictatorship. Not a dictatorship of the proletarian, but a dictatorship against the proletarian by our dear, honorable, and fair comrade Stalin.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 24 2005, 07:58 PM
It must suck going through life defending a long dead dictator. Stalin was a totaltarian, paranoid psychopath deal with it. He used communism to feed his addiction to power. Would the USSR have been better under Trotsky is unknown , but the fact is Stalin was a Totalatarian peice of shit.
Your personal attacks only furthur prove the weakness of your case.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:16 PM
1.It's not exactly news that Lenin's wife was a supporter and friend of Stalin, but this doesn't say anything about the character of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky...it is merely her opinion on Trotsky. Lenin and his wife had disagreements, just like Lenin and Trotsky had disagreements and Lenin and Stalin had disagreements.

2.I suggest you read Lenin's last Testament and see who he recommends for General Secretary of the Soviet Union and why. (I'll give you a hint, it's not "dear comrade Stalin"). Unless you think Lenin, too, was a "brain-rotten murderous trot", or whatever the hell you like to call us these days.

3.Trotsky did more for the Soviet Union in his brief time there (before dear comrade Stalin made him go elsewhere) than Stalin did in his entire time as "general secretary", although he bastardized that position to such a degree that it would be quite acceptable to call it a dictatorship. Not a dictatorship of the proletarian, but a dictatorship against the proletarian by our dear, honorable, and fair comrade Stalin.
In my reply to your post i have divided your post into parts. i hope you will forgive me.

1. The intention behind posting this letter is not a matter of one upmanship, or trying to prove my intellectual prowess. forgive me if it came out that way. The intention behind posting this article by comrade krupskaya was to lay waste to the assertion that she supported Trotsky or was particularly against Stalin. This however is not the only article she has written on this topic. She wrote another on may 1925 however i am trying tpo locate an online version of it.

2. Lenin's last testament was published by Max Eastman, but was disregarded by Trotsky himself in an article he wrote published in the bolshevik.

3. I would strongly disagree with that assertion. History proves contrary to your assertions. However what comrade Stalin did in his pre-leadership days is not only corroborated by lenin himself but also by various sources within the western media itself. Whether Stalin bastardized the communist position is subjective opinion. History proves that Trotsky took more of a deviationist route than Stalin.

For example, pre-1917, Trotsky took up a menshevik position disagreeing with lenin that peasants were a revolutionary force and on certain instances agreed with Plekhanov that the proletariat should unite with the bourgoisie against the feudal elements and landlords.
Another example is the position taken up by Trotsky in his permanent revolution theory, which was vastly deviating from Lenin's position of uninterrupted revolution.
Another example is Trotsky's assertion that the revolution cannot survive without a revolution in the first world, this arguement was effectively rebutted by Lenin.
Another example is Trotsky's proposal for the militarization of labour in Russia which again was opposed by Lenin.
So again i ask you who took the more deviasionist route? Please reply to these assertions with concrete arguements.

[bezdomni]

I guess it would be easiest for me to respond to the three divisions.



1. The intention behind posting this letter is not a matter of one upmanship, or trying to prove my intellectual prowess. forgive me if it came out that way. The intention behind posting this article by comrade krupskaya was to lay waste to the assertion that she supported Trotsky or was particularly against Stalin. This however is not the only article she has written on this topic. She wrote another on may 1925 however i am trying tpo locate an online version of it.

2. Lenin's last testament was published by Max Eastman, but was disregarded by Trotsky himself in an article he wrote published in the bolshevik.

3. I would strongly disagree with that assertion. History proves contrary to your assertions. However what comrade Stalin did in his pre-leadership days is not only corroborated by lenin himself but also by various sources within the western media itself. Whether Stalin bastardized the communist position is subjective opinion. History proves that Trotsky took more of a deviationist route than Stalin.

4)For example, pre-1917, Trotsky took up a menshevik position disagreeing with lenin that peasants were a revolutionary force and on certain instances agreed with Plekhanov that the proletariat should unite with the bourgoisie against the feudal elements and landlords.

Another example is the position taken up by Trotsky in his permanent revolution theory, which was vastly deviating from Lenin's position of uninterrupted revolution.

Another example is Trotsky's assertion that the revolution cannot survive without a revolution in the first world, this arguement was effectively rebutted by Lenin.

Another example is Trotsky's proposal for the militarization of labour in Russia which again was opposed by Lenin.

So again i ask you who took the more deviasionist route? Please reply to these assertions with concrete arguements




1) I never knew that there was an assertion that Krupskaya supported Trotsky. I've always thought of her as a Stalinist. I completely agree that Krupskaya was anti-Trotsky. However, this is no argument for or against Trotsky or Stalin...just an example of someone close to Lenin who supported Stalin.

2) Regardless of who published Lenin's last testament or what Trotsky thought of it, it still says what it says. Didn't Krupskaya even present the letter to some of the "inner-circle" bolshevik leaders, including Stalin? This is a serious question, as I could be wrong. (I believe I read this on the MIA).

3) There are few people who lived in Stalin's USSR that would consider it a free socialist state. While aspects of it were not as bad as the western media may have made it come out to be, it was still not a pretty place to live. I can't and don't blame every problem that occured in the USSR on Stalin (as I realize many trots do). I actually give him very little blame, as the repressive bureaucracy had already started to form before Stalin took complete power. It would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to save the Soviet Union and keep to socialism when Stalin came in, which history later proved to be true...seeing as the USSR eventually collapsed due to the incompetence of the soviet government.

4) I have heard the argument about Trotsky originally siding with the Mensheviks. I heard it first from Lenin in his last testament, and I have heard it many times from Stalinists. He originally joined up with the Mensheviks because he wanted to re-unite them with the Bolsheviks and because he didn't like what Lenin was up to. He thought Lenin was too power-hungry, after seeing him pretty much overthrow the old editors of whatever the name of the newspaper they were working on. Trotsky came back to the Bolsheviks after he realized that the Mensheviks were petit-bourgeois reformists and that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the only true revolutionaries. He pretty much admitted that he made the mistake of not realizing it sooner in his autobiography.

Again, you will get no contention from me that Lenin and Trotsky had their disagreements when it came to theory. However, without Trotsky's leadership, the reds probably would have never won the revolution or the civil war. Stalin was scarcely more than a paper pusher, despite what Soviet Cinema and literature during his reign might suggest.

It should also be noted that Stalin deviated from Lenin especially in the view of international revolution. Stalin was adamantly against it, favoring five year plans in order to industrialize Russia as opposed to aiding revolutionaries in industrialized nations. This lead to a lot of starvation and deaths in Russia, and killed any remaining hope for international socialism in the 20th century. This concept deviates not only from Lenin, but from Marx. Anyway, it doesn't matter if it is congruent with Lenin or not, the USSR was ultimately a failure - a result of Socialism in one country. The same can be said for Trotsky's belief that revolution cannot survive without the aid of industrialized nations. He was right. That is why the USSR ended up the way it did.

Lenin opposed the militarization of labor, but that doesn't mean Trotsky was wrong. I agree that Trotsky took a more deviationist route in his ideology, but again, that doesn't mean Trotsky was wrong.

If you look at ideology, Trotsky made a lot of developments and changes to Lenin's ideas...which is why Trotskyism is considered its own ideology. Stalin made less changes, I'll agree, but the few changes he did make were pretty damning. If Stalin's USSR is Leninism incarnate, then I am no Leninist.

If you look at the history of the USSR, Trotsky was right about a lot of things.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Dec 24 2005, 05:33 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Dec 24 2005, 05:33 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 12:27 PM
Of course, you cant even prove she wrote it. This is all incredibly childish.
Umm...the source is posted at the bottom even the damn page number! [/b]
In Stalin's USSR it was hardly difficult or beyond the limits of his criminality to print an article in her name that she did not actually write to use her reputation.....I don't claim she didnt write it. I claim I dont know....and given that I havent taken a vow of believing everything the (sometimes admirable educationalist) Krupskaya believed, I'm not bothered, either way.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:40 AM


1) I never knew that there was an assertion that Krupskaya supported Trotsky. I've always thought of her as a Stalinist. I completely agree that Krupskaya was anti-Trotsky. However, this is no argument for or against Trotsky or Stalin...just an example of someone close to Lenin who supported Stalin.

2) Regardless of who published Lenin's last testament or what Trotsky thought of it, it still says what it says. Didn't Krupskaya even present the letter to some of the "inner-circle" bolshevik leaders, including Stalin? This is a serious question, as I could be wrong. (I believe I read this on the MIA).

3) There are few people who lived in Stalin's USSR that would consider it a free socialist state. While aspects of it were not as bad as the western media may have made it come out to be, it was still not a pretty place to live. I can't and don't blame every problem that occured in the USSR on Stalin (as I realize many trots do). I actually give him very little blame, as the repressive bureaucracy had already started to form before Stalin took complete power. It would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to save the Soviet Union and keep to socialism when Stalin came in, which history later proved to be true...seeing as the USSR eventually collapsed due to the incompetence of the soviet government.

4) I have heard the argument about Trotsky originally siding with the Mensheviks. I heard it first from Lenin in his last testament, and I have heard it many times from Stalinists. He originally joined up with the Mensheviks because he wanted to re-unite them with the Bolsheviks and because he didn't like what Lenin was up to. He thought Lenin was too power-hungry, after seeing him pretty much overthrow the old editors of whatever the name of the newspaper they were working on. Trotsky came back to the Bolsheviks after he realized that the Mensheviks were petit-bourgeois reformists and that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the only true revolutionaries. He pretty much admitted that he made the mistake of not realizing it sooner in his autobiography.

Again, you will get no contention from me that Lenin and Trotsky had their disagreements when it came to theory. However, without Trotsky's leadership, the reds probably would have never won the revolution or the civil war. Stalin was scarcely more than a paper pusher, despite what Soviet Cinema and literature during his reign might suggest.

It should also be noted that Stalin deviated from Lenin especially in the view of international revolution. Stalin was adamantly against it, favoring five year plans in order to industrialize Russia as opposed to aiding revolutionaries in industrialized nations. This lead to a lot of starvation and deaths in Russia, and killed any remaining hope for international socialism in the 20th century. This concept deviates not only from Lenin, but from Marx. Anyway, it doesn't matter if it is congruent with Lenin or not, the USSR was ultimately a failure - a result of Socialism in one country. The same can be said for Trotsky's belief that revolution cannot survive without the aid of industrialized nations. He was right. That is why the USSR ended up the way it did.

Lenin opposed the militarization of labor, but that doesn't mean Trotsky was wrong. I agree that Trotsky took a more deviationist route in his ideology, but again, that doesn't mean Trotsky was wrong.

If you look at ideology, Trotsky made a lot of developments and changes to Lenin's ideas...which is why Trotskyism is considered its own ideology. Stalin made less changes, I'll agree, but the few changes he did make were pretty damning. If Stalin's USSR is Leninism incarnate, then I am no Leninist.

If you look at the history of the USSR, Trotsky was right about a lot of things.
1. Actually many Trotskyists argue that Lenin wanted Trotsky to succeed him and Krupskaya also supported Trotsky over Stalin. Within Trotsky's own autobiography 'my life' he repeatedly quotes overblown incidents of Stalin and Krupskaya's differences. I am Not denying they did exist i am just trying to show that they did not occur to the extent that she turned against him in favour of Trotsky.

2. Lenin's 'last testament' was actually a letter to the politburo advising on administrative matters. Nowhere does it specify a successor, Trotsky himself denied this! However the myth of the 'will' emerged when Trotsky went against his former position and claimed that he was cheated out of leadership. In fact an ineer-party referendum was carried out in which less than 10% of the party cadres indentified with Trotsky and his 'permanent revolution' theory.

3. Actually Stalin is well loved by many Russians who lived during his time. Many look back at that peroid with nostalgia. Whether Stalin promoted the beurocracy, absolutely not. Did he do enough to stop it's emergence? not really. The USSR collapsed not because of inefficiency but because of de-stalinization and de-leninization of soviet russia by Khruschev and continuing upto Gorbachev.

4. Trotsky actually shared many Menshevik positions and actively promoted them on his organ 'vyperyod' sometimes even taking up positions directly contrary to Lenin's. Calling that promoting unity is in my opinion misguided. since all that did was to widen the gulf between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

I agree however that Trotsky had a part to play in the Russian revolution. nobody can take that away from him. However Stalin also played an important part. He organized on several fronts and was the only memeber to be on 4 party organizations simoultaneously!

Socialism in one country was basically Lenin's uninterrupted revolution theory. Lenin himself advocated industrializing the country. Whether Parties in the first world were aided is a contentious issue since many Marxist-leninist parties in the mediterranian owe their existence to soviet aid. Alongwith asia.
However the contention that the fall of the USSR was the result of socialism in one country is simplistic. the soviet union not only survived the second world war as a global superpower in spite of suffering the worst in terms of lives and material losses, speaks volumes about Trotsky's contention that the USSR cannot survive. The downturn came when Khruschev de-stalinized Russia by sidelining the marxist-leninists under Molotov, rolled back Stalin's economic policies, and aimed to introduce his own version of 'leninism', under Brezhnev, the economy stagnated, and Gorbachev destroyed the country by re-introducing naked capitalism. Is this then a failure of 'socialism in one country'? i think not.
Ask any Russian under Stalin's time what they thought of Stalin's policies and in the majority of cases you will get a positive picture. Instead of Backing off from leninism why don't we debate it out and learn something from each other?

[bezdomni]

1. Actually many Trotskyists argue that Lenin wanted Trotsky to succeed him and Krupskaya also supported Trotsky over Stalin. Within Trotsky's own autobiography 'my life' he repeatedly quotes overblown incidents of Stalin and Krupskaya's differences. I am Not denying they did exist i am just trying to show that they did not occur to the extent that she turned against him in favour of Trotsky.

2. Lenin's 'last testament' was actually a letter to the politburo advising on administrative matters. Nowhere does it specify a successor, Trotsky himself denied this! However the myth of the 'will' emerged when Trotsky went against his former position and claimed that he was cheated out of leadership. In fact an ineer-party referendum was carried out in which less than 10% of the party cadres indentified with Trotsky and his 'permanent revolution' theory.

3. Actually Stalin is well loved by many Russians who lived during his time. Many look back at that peroid with nostalgia. Whether Stalin promoted the beurocracy, absolutely not. Did he do enough to stop it's emergence? not really. The USSR collapsed not because of inefficiency but because of de-stalinization and de-leninization of soviet russia by Khruschev and continuing upto Gorbachev.

4. Trotsky actually shared many Menshevik positions and actively promoted them on his organ 'vyperyod' sometimes even taking up positions directly contrary to Lenin's. Calling that promoting unity is in my opinion misguided. since all that did was to widen the gulf between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

5.I agree however that Trotsky had a part to play in the Russian revolution. nobody can take that away from him. However Stalin also played an important part. He organized on several fronts and was the only memeber to be on 4 party organizations simoultaneously!

6.Socialism in one country was basically Lenin's uninterrupted revolution theory. Lenin himself advocated industrializing the country. Whether Parties in the first world were aided is a contentious issue since many Marxist-leninist parties in the mediterranian owe their existence to soviet aid. Alongwith asia.
However the contention that the fall of the USSR was the result of socialism in one country is simplistic. the soviet union not only survived the second world war as a global superpower in spite of suffering the worst in terms of lives and material losses, speaks volumes about Trotsky's contention that the USSR cannot survive. The downturn came when Khruschev de-stalinized Russia by sidelining the marxist-leninists under Molotov, rolled back Stalin's economic policies, and aimed to introduce his own version of 'leninism', under Brezhnev, the economy stagnated, and Gorbachev destroyed the country by re-introducing naked capitalism. Is this then a failure of 'socialism in one country'? i think not.
Ask any Russian under Stalin's time what they thought of Stalin's policies and in the majority of cases you will get a positive picture. Instead of Backing off from leninism why don't we debate it out and learn something from each other?

1) I'm not going to reply to this because I agree with you. Krupskaya was a Stalinist, I guess I'm one of the few trots who agree with it. However, it was a lot easier to be a Stalinist at the time immediately following Lenin's death than it is today, because now we have the ability to look back at what Stalin did, as opposed to imagining what he would be able to do in the future. Anyway, you'll get no debate out of me that Krupskaya supported Stalin.

2) Yeah, it doesn't say "I want Trotsky to be General Secretary", but it does say that Stalin is "infatuated with power" and...
Last Testament - MIA (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/index.htm)

I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than undergo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation. -Lenin

I just thought this one was kind of funny:

Dear Comrade Stalin:

You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you , therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.[1]

Respectfully yours,

Lenin [1923]

Lenin also said somewhere that even though Trotsky originally pissed him off by siding with the Mensheviks would probably be the best choice for the leadership of the USSR.

3. The people who were critical of Stalin (Left Opposition) were exiled, killed, or kicked out of the government. Anyway, as I've already said, it would have been a lot easier to side with Stalin in 1924, because you didn't know what he was going to do. Now we know about the gulags, the purges..etc, making it harder to see the admirable qualities in Stalin. The Russian people (especially the peasantry) liked Stalin because they were enjoying more freedom than they ever had befeore under the Tsar. That doesn't mean Stalin was a good leader, he was just better than the Tsar. Socialism is about people's government and their accomplishments, not the accomplishments of a dictator's deformed worker's state

4. Trotsky wanted to reuinte the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, but he pretty much failed at it because the Mensheviks were reactionary by their nature. The differences were irreconilable. When he realized that, he went back to the Bolsheviks. He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes. I'm not going to try and justify the Menshevik decision, because it was a kind of crappy one. I'm just saying what happened.

5. I don't feel like getting into yet another debate over Permanant, Uninterrupted and National revolution...there are plenty of them on this forum. I've already agreed that Trotsky deviated more from Lenin than Stalin.

I've got nothing against debating Leninism or learning anything, and I didn't mean to say that I'm not a Leninist...but that I don't believe Stalinism is an accurate representation of Leninism. Stalin's "developments" of Leninism were mostly regressions, while Trotsky's "developments" were mostly improvements.

Just so you know, I am not a hardline Trotskyist/Leninist....my own personal ideas deviate somewhat from both Trotsky and Lenin...so what I say will not be/has not been conventional Trotskyist rhetoric. Which is good, because you seem to know too much to be a conventional Stalinist. I have met maybe one other Stalinist who was well read in Soviet History and Marxist ideology.

I sometimes get tired of arguing over dead people.

[viva le revolution]

Actually i am a Maoist. :D

[bezdomni]

Haha.

I thought Maoists were critical of Stalin just as much as Trotskyists were?

Or am I mistaken?

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:02 PM
Haha.

I thought Maoists were critical of Stalin just as much as Trotskyists were?

Or am I mistaken?
Thats a mistake, after Kruchev denounced Stalin, Mao denounced the USSR.

[bolshevik butcher]

Maoists, like stalin with extra insanity.

On the previous point, I have seen Maoists criticize some of Stalins decisions before, but remain generally supportive of him.

[Ian]

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/lists/news_189.jpg

[Hiero]

Maoists, like stalin with extra insanity.

You're a fool, can you pleas stop it.


I thought Maoists were critical of Stalin just as much as Trotskyists were?

Or am I mistaken?

Since clenched fist does not understand the line of Stalin and Mao, ill explain.

Maoist criticise Stalin in so far as Stalin didn't understand the importance of the superstructure. Stalin belived as long as the economics was right, there was not a big need for struggle in the susperstrucure. Stalin was a bureaucrat as he used purges to stop revisionist and counter revolutionaries, but that fails once the revisionist have a majority in the Party and the people are not ideological armed to understand revisionism to remove the country revolutionaries in the party.

Hoxha followed on with Stalin's bureaucracy, while Mao and other Chinese Marxist developed the theory of revisionism and attempt a Cultural Revolution to remove revisionists and keep the ecomonic base proletariat.

So Maoist criticise Stalin's inability to developed theory, but generally agree with his economics, beside a few disagreements over light and meduim industry.

If you want i can PM you Mao's criticism of Stalin, or you can find the thread in history (Redstar moved it to history after he got pissed off that people were for once not quoting him in the forum).

[afnan]

I thought Maoists were critical of Stalin just as much as Trotskyists were?

Or am I mistaken?

`Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.'
This was the resolution with which Mao Zedong , on December 21, 1939, "in the distant caves of that huge China, toasted Stalin's sixtieth birthday."

Mao Tse-Tung, `Stalin, Friend of the Chinese People', Works, vol. 2, p. 335.

[h&s]

When will people who post these articles realise that revolutuionary politics has nothing to do with personality?
So Lenin's wife wrote something against Trotsky. :o
So what?
Does it look like we give a shit?
You may worhip your leaders and think they are infallible, but we certainly don't.

You can argue forever the agument against Trotsky, but it will only ever prove your political immaturity.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 6 2006, 04:49 PM
When will people who post these articles realise that revolutuionary politics has nothing to do with personality?
.
Really you wouldn't know that coming from most who swear at Stalin and Mao. And the great 'monsters' china and the ussr!
Practice what you preach.

[afnan]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 6 2006, 04:49 PM
When will people who post these articles realise that revolutuionary politics has nothing to do with personality?
Discussing individuals is a Trotsky's speciality, as pointed out by Comrade Krupskaya. Trotsky starts off on Stalin by pointing out flaws his personal habits. What an unscientific analysis.

We, Marxist-Leninists, are discussing and defending the policies of Stalin. I must re-post Mao's quotation, as it explains our intention when we defend Stalin.

Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.'

[Mao Tse-Tung, `Stalin, Friend of the Chinese People', Works, vol. 2, p. 335.]

[h&s]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Jan 6 2006, 05:34 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Jan 6 2006, 05:34 PM)
h&[email protected] 6 2006, 04:49 PM
When will people who post these articles realise that revolutuionary politics has nothing to do with personality?
.
Really you wouldn't know that coming from most who swear at Stalin and Mao. And the great 'monsters' china and the ussr!
Practice what you preach.[/b]
I don't blame what happened in the USSR on Stalin at all.
I may have done in the past, but I don't anymore.
Everything is a class issue.

--


Trotsky starts off on Stalin by pointing out flaws his personal habits. What an unscientific analysis.

Oh, because thats all he ever did. :rolleyes: So he didn't like Stalin as a person, but then again hardly anyone did.


We, Marxist-Leninists, are discussing and defending the policies of Stalin.
Yes but posting something written by Lenin's wife is basically saying that becasue she wrote it it must be true.