Originally posted by
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:42 AM
1. To start, the quote proceeding the above statement is nonsensical. How can you assert that Trotsky did not have a firm opinion of Marxism? Is that not one of the things that Stalinists have actually critisized Trotskyists on in the past; their unwillingness to bend from their rigid opinions? In all probability this quote is a Stalinist fake as it is, seeing as the majority (though not all) of quote's from Lenin critisizing Stalin appear in no 'existing' form from before Lenin's death, while the majority of his documents attacking Stalin exist in their original forms.
Yes, Stalin, like Trotsky, was a Communist since his youth, though he could not possibly have joined the Bolshevik Part at age 15 as that would have been in 1894, 9 years before the party was founded. I will stop here to point out that inaccuracy as more than a simple mistake, it is infact an excellent minor of the reaccuring gaps in the knowledge of Stalinists which they use to distort the past, falsly attack others, substitute for real knowledge and dialectics, and prop up their own beleifs. Stalin did associate with many different parts of the Bolshevik Party during the Civil War, but in none as a major party leader of figure. He was merely a middle ranking go between for the different parts of the party, unheard of by the Soviet people or even outside certain party groups until not long before Lenin's death.
2. course Trotsky did not invent the idea of world revolution, only a capitalist source such as the Times could be ignorant enough to claim that, and only a Stalinist ciniving enough to mistake that as the position of modern Trotskyists. Although it was not Trotsky who first realized this neccesity, it was Stalin who abandoned it in the face of eighty years of Marxist science. Stalin supported a few Socialist and Communist groups after his abandonement of the world proletariat, but typically through such bourgeoise bodies as Popular Front Alliances, and never enough as needed (Spanish Civil War). One of the countries he supported most, as viva le revolution helpfully points out, was indeed China, but not Communist China. Stalin ordered the Chinese Communists to allie with the by then nearly fascist Nationalist Chinese, who he gave most of his aid and political backing to. Once Mao had succesfuly accomplished revolution in China Stalin did support Mao, but this only points out that he was unwilling to assist in the dirty work of revolution, only reep the rewards afterwards. This happened en mass in Europe after the war, where just a little Soviet assistence would have surely delivered victory to the Greek Communists, and when the elected Italian Communist leaders of Italy were illegaly disposed of by the West without any considerable Soviet Opposition. Need I also harken to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?
3.u also mentioned Trotskyist calls for the destruction of socialist countries, which is again a gross inaccuracy. Trotskyists always support anti imperialist countries over imperialist ones, and countries progressing towards Socialism (socialism has never been reached comrade, not even under Stalin) over Capitalist Nations. What Trotskyists do insist on, however, is that though peasent and petty-bourgeoise revolutions are not real proletarian revolution, just as did Lenin and Marx before him. Therefore, while a Trotskist may have opposed Maoist China as a real Worker's State, and would still have pushed for a working class revolution there, they would always defend it against attacks from imperialist nations, capitalists, and the bourgeoise.
4. ill not even argue the rediculous comments that "Stalin left behind a system whereby a leader was recallable"or that dissenting debate in the party was not forbidden. Comrade, you can beleive that Stalin's policies were correct, I will disagree with you but respect that. But to assert that Stalin was not a dictator, that he could have been peacefuly removed from the party, do not disseive yourself.
5.ce again, this statement demonstrates major gaps in the poster's logic and knowledge. First of all, during the 1920s, anti-Kulakism and collectivism of agriculture were two of the largest political clashes between the Left-Opposition and the Stalinists. However, during this time it was the Stalinists who supported the Kulaks and opposed collectivism! Touting slogans such as "Get Rich!" to support the Kulaks, for years they handed them more power and wealth at the expense of the peasentry and rural proletariat. It was not until the Kulaks becagan to oppenly oppose the government, using their new power to attempt to gain control of the government, that Stalin began to oppose them, something which Trotskyists had seen as neccesary to the catch-up of agriculture to industrialization since the beginning. Stalinists had also dismissed collectivism as "Utopian" and collectives as "pockets in a sea of privitization" during the 1920s, stating that the beginnings of collectivism were "at least 30 years off". It was not until the episode with the Kulaks that Stalin collectivized the peasants. This was done too fast, and reclously, however, and that is why Trotskists opposed it at least in partiality. Trotskyists have always supported collectivism, as stated it was the open position of the Left-Opposition in the 1920s. They do, however, believe that it is inappropriate to do it forceably (in a supposedly worker's state!). This played out when Stalin did so, resulting in unacceptable levels of inflation, a decline in the economy and productivity of the nation, opposition by the peasents which led to a collapse in agricultural output and the slaughter of 1/2 of the nation's livestock, and at least two major famines across the country. The poster also confuses Trotsky's support for the "militarization of labor". He is refering to the period which Lenin dubbed 'Military Communism' which lasted during the Civil War from 1917-1921. It was originally adopted when world revolution was beleived to be only a couple years off, and was rejected by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (who had supported it) in favor of an alliance with the peasentry.
6., industrialization was supported by Lenin, though the manor in which Stalin went about this was inappropriate. Stalin had, until the 2nd year of the first five year plan, rejected mass industrialization as impossible, and predicted very low growth rates for the nation. It was not until he adopted more Leninist methods (which had always been supported by Trotskyists) that the Soviet Economy really began to boom, and Stalin changed his opinions. However, Stalin still allowed inflation to loose control, and kept little check over the strength of the Ruble, both measures which would have greatly assisted in the industrialization of the nation. In addition, much of that produced during this period was of exceptionaly low quality, and highly prone to breakdowns, both factors canceling out a good deal of the progress actually being made.
The Minister of Nationalities was not a pro nationalist position. In this sense, Nationalities merely refers to the ethnic and linguistic minorities in Soviet Russia, and the goal of their minister was to assert their proper treatement and peaceful assimilationg into Soviet Society.
7. I stated before, Stalin supported the Nationalists Chinese, including in their crush of the Chinese Revolution of 1926-27, when Chiang Kai-shek slaughtered millions of Trotskists as well as protoMaoists. Mao supported Stalin's support of the Nationalists during the war, that only makes sense seeing as Mao is a Stalinist, though Mao's attacks on Nationalists during the war demonstrate how if Mao was in a stronger position he would have opposed the alliance with the Nationalists completely, and he would have been in this position had the Soviets gave him unconditional backing. And yes, Stalin's USSR did defeat Germany, but the poster should also remember that Trotskists supported the unconditional defense of the Soviet Union during the War.
1. To begin with, i have not added any new information. The quoted parts are all Lenin's original statements. You are free to look up Lenin's article 'the right of nations to self-determination'. To address your point of 'stalinist fakes' this article is availible on marxists.org, a trotskyist-run website, but admittedly the largest collection of marxist works. You are free to check them out. Your effort to diregard them as fake shows that you are not familiar with all of Lenin's works. However i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Stalin played a major part in the bolshevik revolution. Many sources have backed this claim. Not surprising however, is that these are not accepted by trotskyists, who go on to claim that Trotsky played the only role in the revolution, disregarding contributions made by other comrades! Of course this is in line with the Chauvinist, individualist view of events presented by trotsky himself.
2. Of course the other point regarding the stance that Stalin abandoned world revolution and assistance to other world comrades only furthur propounds the myopic, Trotskyite version of events. As a Marxist-leninist i fully support Mao's decision to ally with the Kuomintang to defeat the Japanese militarists. This is in keeping with material necessities and conditions of that time. Unless the people of china were unioted, how could they possibly defeat a vastly superior more organized enemy?!!??? Of course this opportunity was not lost by Trotskyists to criticize the united front against Fascism. Of course Mao upheld Stalin later on, as to what 'rewards' Stalin kept is a mystery!
As to the Greeks, their defeat was mainly due to their own mistaken positions, ie. a frontal, defensive posture instead of a partisan warfare against a vastly superior enemy. Their defeat was mostly due to their own mistaken analysis of material conditions. Of course, another opportunity not lost in your arguements.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact granted the Soviet Union considerable time to prepare for war and invasion. Whether this was a correct view is proven by history. However the myopic, individualist and chauvinist view of Trotsky tries to disregard this with empty phrases and pandering, totally disregarding a material analysis of the situation nor willing to take into account any sort of reason nor reality. The proof of the necessity of this preparation is the blitzkrieg against western europe where an industrial power france was defeated with relative ease. Taking this into consideration it becomes abundantly clear that preparations were needed. However the Trotskyist philanderers do not seem to be able to understand this.
3. The Trotskyie assertion of 'degenrate worker's state' and 'stalinist beurocracy' etc. etc. brought grist to the mill of bourgeois propaganda machines. The majority of Trotskyite parties and organizations in the U.S alone call for opposition to Cuba etc. as 'stalinist hellholes' etc. This is just pandering to bourgeois nationalist sensibilities, forwarding and supporting bourgeois propaganda and ultimately counts as support for the bourgeois hostilities. Of course, defending is far from accurate since most likely Trotskyist propaganda often does propaganda work for the imperialist powers anyways. This is an inherent contradiction in Trotskyite organizations. A clear example of this would be the fact that Trotsky was the main force behind demonizing the Soviet union, his claims being picked up not only by fascists like Solynitzyn, Hearst but also Nazi propaganda! So the assertion that a Trotskyist party is anti-imperialist in the same sense as a Marxist-leninist or Maoist party is, is non-sense. Privately maybe an individual in such an organization may hold feelings of genuine internationalism but as an organization, the Trotskyite party panders to imperialist propaganda perfectly.
4. I still hold firm to my stand that Stalin tried to democratize the Soviet Union. You on the other hand are relying merely on propaganda and statements aimed at 'shock value' to furthur your case. There is a thread called 'stalin and democratic reform' look it up. Unless you actively try to listen to the other side and rely on Trotskyite and bourgeois lies, then it is you who are deciving yourself.
5. The kulaks were the by-product of Lenin's NEP, however it seems that you are confused here. Bukharin, Zinoviev and company were the ones who supported the kulaks and opposed collectivization! Your refusal to acjnowledge this fact only weakens your case furthur. This too is a perfect example of Trotskyite opportunism, during the collectivization phase, it was opposed by Trots claiming to be against 'forced, inhuman barbarity' by the soviet beurocracy, but afetr it's success saying, 'we supported it from the start! what took him so long!". The version that says that Stalinists supported the Kulaks is pure unadulterated pap!
Trotsky proposed the militarization of labour in the first place! This was stated by Lenin! So how could he be against it? This again is another example of convenient glorofication of Trotsky at work.
6. Stalin largely followed Lenin's blueprints. Particularly in the laying of networks of electrical power all over russia. In fact, success was 233% better than Lenin had envisioned. This however is discounting sobotage and provocative counter-revolutionary crimes and attacks on cadres in rural areas. Which are documented by engineers from america etc. All in 'another view of stalin' by Ludo martens.
As for the national question, how then is it that Stalin was njot cfhucked out by Lenin. In fact stalin's major work, 'marxism and the national question' was praised by Lenin. In your statement meant to confuse the reader you state that the post was meant to treat minorities properly etc. Yes, but on the previous post you accuse Stalin of not doing so and suppressing nationalities. My original question still stands if Stalin was departing from Leninism then how come he wasn't replaced?
7. Your statement makes no sense! Of course Mao opposed the nationalists! So did Stalin! The alliance was a tactical one to counter japanease might! This a basic principle and issue! The chinese communists were not strong enough to counter japanese might alone alongwith nationalist forces! Again this demonstrates your weak analysis of conditions of the time and the weakness and unrealistic position of the Trotskyites!