Differences between stalin and Trotsky

[Rasoolpuri]

I am an old marxist .It was period of Veitnam war .We all freinds were supporters of Veitnam .In those days red book remained in our hands .We were stalinist .We have been taught by our teachers that Trotsky was a traiter of revelution .Lenin was his against .Trotsky opposed several times of comrade Lenin .We was taught that Trostsky was being used in the hand of imperialist countries .Now old comrade repeat their contentions .But now in our country there are two groups of Trotskiests .One labour pary 'second is being called class struggle group by Lal Khan .

I want to know what were basic defirences between Stalin and Trotsky .I am member of this forum .My freinds are saying that this is group of trotskiests .Save yourself from these so called comrades .

Excuse me for this blunt message .Kindly tell me about these issuses .Thanks :cool:

[Enragé]

Stalin was for "socialism in one country" whereas trotsky advocated continuous revolution, world revolution.

Also, trotsky opposed the burocratic tendencies in Stalin's regime, and branded the USSR as a degenerated worker-state.
Which is the biggest difference between stalinists and trotskists, trotskists see the USSR as an oppressive regime, the taking power of Stalin as a counterrevolution, whereas Stalinists like the USSR (at least up untill '55)

In general
trotskyist groups tend to be more democratic than stalinist ones, have no/less leader worship etc etc.

In my opinion, trotskyists are a fuckload better than stalinists.

I myself, am a libertarian communist. (non-leninist)

Oh and on this board there are maoists, stalinists, trotskyists, anarchists etc etc
everybody's welcome.

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm a member of the same international as Lal Khan, and personally I think that the CMI is doing fantastic work in Pakistan through things such as the pakistani trade union defence campaign. What's wrong with Lal Khan or trotskyism? What have the mass stalinist parties who once had so much influence in Pakistan actually achieved?

The main difference between Stalinism and Trtskyism is that Trotskyism believes in 'the pernament revolution', an internationals ocailist revolution rather than 'socailsim in one country'and stagism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by NKOS
Stalin was for "socialism in one country" whereas trotsky advocated continuous revolution, world revolution.

No, that just meant that Stalin planned to industrialize the USSR before funding revolutions around the world. Trotsky would've done the same, but called it something different.


Also, trotsky opposed the burocratic tendencies in Stalin's regime, and branded the USSR as a degenerated worker-state.
Which is the biggest difference between stalinists and trotskists, trotskists see the USSR as an oppressive regime, the taking power of Stalin as a counterrevolution, whereas Stalinists like the USSR (at least up untill '55)

Well anyone who calls himself a Stalinist is an idiot, who is usually a "Stalin-kiddie" and who ignores the Massive errors of Stalin. Marxist-Leninists ususally acknowledge the problems of Stalin and the beauracracy, but use historical materialism to understand the position he was in and understand that the USSR under Stalin was a worker's state because the workers were the direct beneficiaries of Stalin's economic policies and saw massive improvements in standards of living. Also, the USSR was run by workers.


In general
trotskyist groups tend to be more democratic than stalinist ones, have no/less leader worship etc etc.

Once again, groups that call themselves "Stalinist" probably do worship a leader but they have zero understanding of marxism. Marxist-Leninist groups don't "worship" their leader, that is an upsurd claim.


I myself, am a libertarian communist. (non-leninist)

An oxymoron because revolution is inherently authoritarian, but don't take my word, take the fact that libertarian Communism and the like are first world phenomenons.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 11, 2006 06:04 pm
I'm a member of the same international as Lal Khan, and personally I think that the CMI is doing fantastic work in Pakistan through things such as the pakistani trade union defence campaign. What's wrong with Lal Khan or trotskyism? What have the mass stalinist parties who once had so much influence in Pakistan actually achieved?

The main difference between Stalinism and Trtskyism is that Trotskyism believes in 'the pernament revolution', an internationals ocailist revolution rather than 'socailsim in one country'and stagism.
Yes, Pakistan is the one country where trots have any sort of influence. Meanwhile Marxist-Leninists are active, and far larger, in Nepal, Peru, Colombia, Cuba, India, Turkey (I think), the Philipines, and Indonesia (I think).

[The Grey Blur]

Nepal
:lol: Prachanda


Peru
:lol: Guzman


India
:lol: Naxalites

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trotsky and Stalin differed on a few decisive points - supporting full worker's revolutions - fascism and how it should be combatted - how Socialists should campaign to win support among the working-class etc.

If you simply look at the sheer political persecution of dissidents under Stalin's rule as well as the many massacres he is responsible for you will see that he is utterly discredited as a worthwhile radical political figure.

"Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International." - James P. Cannon, American Trotskyist

[bolshevik butcher]

I'd like to point that CMI alone has significant groundings in India and is fast building a serious organisation, the Indaniesian communist movement certianly was huge during the national liberation struggle, many thousands were butchered by the bourgoeirse though. In Cuba trotskyist tendancies are banned from being active, although they do often produce writings and are allowed to distribute them. In Peru the shining path are a fossil to the distant past, the labour movement has long since over taken them. All over Latin America trotskyism is actually growing.

[Rasoolpuri]

I myself, am a libertarian communist. (non-leninist)

DearNKOS '
what is its means .I think all communists are leninist .What is controvery with lenin?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 10:04 pm
I think all communists are leninist
Council Communists are not leninists.

[Red October]

if stalin was alive today he would have a nasty mullet. trotsky would probably have the same hair he did back in the day.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 11, 2006 09:16 pm
if stalin was alive today he would have a nasty mullet. trotsky would probably have the same hair he did back in the day.
Someone makes one post about mullets and now everyone is all up on them.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL+December 11, 2006 09:47 pm--> (Freedom for all...ALL @ December 11, 2006 09:47 pm)
Red October [email protected] 11, 2006 09:16 pm
if stalin was alive today he would have a nasty mullet. trotsky would probably have the same hair he did back in the day.
Someone makes one post about mullets and now everyone is all up on them. [/b]
its an irresistable topic. and we all know stalin is the kind of dude who would have an unwashed chopped mullet.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:48 pm

I myself, am a libertarian communist. (non-leninist)

An oxymoron because revolution is inherently authoritarian, but don't take my word, take the fact that libertarian Communism and the like are first world phenomenons.
Haha, I don't even think you know what libertarian communism is. But given your track record, I'm not surprised since you never seem to know what anything is. You just like to make absurd statements like this without ever backing them up. Communalists with libertarian tendencies have been around since the beginning of modern civilization. Just look at the Bretheren of the Free Spirit, or the Diggers. They certainly didn't live in the first world. Anarchism also has a long history in Latin America and Eastern europe.

[bezdomni]

what is its means .I think all communists are leninist .What is controvery with lenin?

You'll be surprised.

The controversy with Lenin is that people have the tendency to not read anything he wrote and base their entire "anti-leninism" around accepting what other people say Lenin wrote.

[Conghaileach]

Stalin attained leadership of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky didn't.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:04 am
I myself, am a libertarian communist. (non-leninist)

DearNKOS '
what is its means .I think all communists are leninist .What is controvery with lenin?
No, not all communists are leninists.

You have, for instance, council communism, anarchocommunism and much more, put together they're called libertarian communism.

The controversy with lenin is that lenin advocates a "vanguard party".
Libertarian communists are against this vanguard party because they believe it leads, among other things, after the revolution to a beaurocratic rule of that vanguard party. Instead of the people coming to power, the vanguard party comes to power and becomes the new ruling class.

Libertarian communists propose as alternative to this in the form of grassroots, horizontal organisation. In practice this means that there is no "chairman", no "central committee". There are just different elected delegates from the different sections of the organisation who come together to discuss certain things.
So when the revolution comes, there is no leader, no central committee to take state power and become the ruling class, no, instead, the entire working class organised horizontally, on a grassroots (in the factories, the local community etc etc) level comes to power.


The controversy with Lenin is that people have the tendency to not read anything he wrote and base their entire "anti-leninism" around accepting what other people say Lenin wrote

lenin did indeed write some good things.
But his method of organisation maneouvred (sp?) him into such a position that he became more and more authoritarian.
And then when some people rose up and said "we want the democracy you wrote about!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Demands_are_issued) he had them killed.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:48 pm
Trotsky would've done the same, but called it something different.



And you know this how?


Also, the USSR was run by workers.

As is America, Britain, Germany, Japan etc. Workers run all modern economies, but in capitalist nations they are controlled by a ruling class. Just as they were in the USSR.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

And you know this how?

Because he would have realized that the USSR was an poor, agarian based economy surrounded by capitalist, fuedal, and semi-fuedal countries ready to destroy the world's first worker state.


As is America, Britain, Germany, Japan etc. Workers run all modern economies, but in capitalist nations they are controlled by a ruling class. Just as they were in the USSR.

The workers were the rulings class in the USSR.


Haha, I don't even think you know what libertarian communism is. But given your track record, I'm not surprised since you never seem to know what anything is. You just like to make absurd statements like this without ever backing them up. Communalists with libertarian tendencies have been around since the beginning of modern civilization. Just look at the Bretheren of the Free Spirit, or the Diggers. They certainly didn't live in the first world. Anarchism also has a long history in Latin America and Eastern europe.

Yes, you can use a few tolken examples but workers consistantly choose Marxism-Leninism over Anarchism. It is not an absurd statement because it is true.

libertarian communism is a term that covers the branches of communism that are not leninist and that are against democratic centralism in general. These branches are for the most part, Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communist, etc...

[Redmau5]

Because he would have realized that the USSR was an poor, agarian based economy surrounded by capitalist, fuedal, and semi-fuedal countries ready to destroy the world's first worker state.

Of course. He would have industrialised the USSR no doubt. Would he have adopted the extremely flawed 'socialism in one country' theory? Probably not.


The workers were the rulings class in the USSR.

No, the bureaucrats were.


Yes, you can use a few tolken examples but workers consistantly choose Marxism-Leninism over Anarchism

Workers chose fucking Nazism in Germany. What's your point?

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 09:14 pm
The controversy with lenin is that lenin advocates a "vanguard party".
Libertarian communists are against this vanguard party because they believe it leads, among other things, after the revolution to a beaurocratic rule of that vanguard party. Instead of the people coming to power, the vanguard party comes to power and becomes the new ruling class.
Sorry, but that is bs. The degeneration of the Soviet Union was based on two important factors:
1. The isolation of the revolution from the rest of the world.
2. The fact that Russia was a very backward country, which speeded things up by a lot.

The civil war killed a lot of the cadres, and by the end of it elements of the old tsaristic ruling class seized their opportunity and took power. The irony is that these people were actually needed because they were the only people that had the knowledge to govern the whole lot (mind that 80+% of the population couldn't read or write at the time).

Ofcourse the simple fact that the Russian revolution had the task of a bourgeois revolution (ending feudalism), didn't help: Russia simply couldn't carry a socialistic economy. This is also one of the important factors why internationalism is so much emphasized by Trotskyists, because even if Germany or the US would have a revolution today, they wouldn't succeed if that revolution remained isolated in that country.

But as a general rule of thumb you can say that how more backward a country is, how faster and more powerfull the bureaucratic reaction will be, and this is exactly what happend in Russia.

The function of a revolutionary party is to create a vanguard of people that have the knowledge to lead the masses in the socialistic phase. See it as a "ripple-effect" in knowledge: you start with a small number of people that have come to revolutionary conclusions by themselves -> they build an organisation that educates new members -> in times of intense class struggle, this organisation can get a foothold by using the temporary rise in class countiousness -> during and after a revolution this vanguard eventually dissolve into society, starting soviets and passing the knowledge to the masses. You can't just say "hey people, we have power now, lets have a direct democracy!", you have to grow into that stage. This is one of the basic functions of the socialistic phase.


Libertarian communists propose as alternative to this in the form of grassroots, horizontal organisation. In practice this means that there is no "chairman", no "central committee". There are just different elected delegates from the different sections of the organisation who come together to discuss certain things.
So when the revolution comes, there is no leader, no central committee to take state power and become the ruling class, no, instead, the entire working class organised horizontally, on a grassroots (in the factories, the local community etc etc) level comes to power.

As you're describing things here, it sounds a lot like soviet democracy. Which is ofcourse advocated by Trotskyists.


lenin did indeed write some good things.
But his method of organisation maneouvred (sp?) him into such a position that he became more and more authoritarian.
And then when some people rose up and said "we want the democracy you wrote about!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Demands_are_issued) he had them killed.

Yes, that was a tragedy. But you have to look at the bigger picture of Kronstadt: the active civil war had just come to an end, but imperialist forces were looking for ground to launch new attacks from. Kronstadt happend at the wrong time at the wrong place. Ofcourse there is nothing wrong with people demanding more democratic freedoms, but right at that time that would have resulted in a powerfull ground for imperialist forces. And that had to be stopped, at all cost.

Proof of imperialist intervention came a few years back by the release of some French secret service documents, but I can't find them right now (damnit, I should bookmark this kind of stuff).

[ern]

Hi

The council communist saw themselves as being part of the Communist Left. The Left of the Communist International that fought first against the growing opportunism of the Communist International, then Stalin's efforts to strangle it and with the death of the International in 1926, fought against the degeneration of the various national parties. Within the Communist Left, there were various currents. The most well known being the KAPD in Germany, the Council Communist in Germany and Holland from the middle 1920's. There was also the Italian Communist Left, which was the main part of the Italian Party until the Stalinists gained the upper hand. This current was also known as the Bordigists, after Bordiga.
These different parts of the communist Left certainly had varying ideas about the question of the party and the nature of the Russian revolution. Nevertheless, they were united by their internationalism. An internationalism that was the bases of their struggle against the crushing weight of nationalism in its various Stalinist forms. An internationalism that saw the groups of the Communist Left defend an internationalist position against the imperialist slaughter of WW2.
It was on the question of the support of the war that mark the final Rubicon of Trotskyism. Unlike the Communist Left, Trotskyism - though not Trotsky- fell hook, line and sinker, for national defense under the pretext of defending the socialist fatherland or defense of democracy against fascism. A few Trotskyist groups, including Natalia Trotsky defending internationlism but this meant breaking with Trotskyism's defence of the USSR.

[Severian]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 11, 2006 03:48 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ December 11, 2006 03:48 pm)
NKOS
Stalin was for "socialism in one country" whereas trotsky advocated continuous revolution, world revolution.

No, that just meant that Stalin planned to industrialize the USSR before funding revolutions around the world. Trotsky would've done the same, but called it something different. [/b]
No. The issue is not funding. The issue is revolution versus reform.

The early USSR - in Lenin's time - encouraged Communist Parties around the world to follow a revolutionary course. The Bolsheviks tried to help these parties with their own experience in building a successful revolutionary movement - tried to help them avoid both errors of reformist sellout and premature insurrection.

Trotsky was part of this early Comintern. He tried to continue the same approach in exile - tried, with limited success, to help others build revolutionary organizations.

The Kremlin under Stalin, Khrushev, and others, did the opposite. It encouraged the Communist Parties to adopt a refomist approach. The Communist Parties of Europe have joined numerous coalition governments, in the social-democratic tradition. The CPUSA supports the Democratic Party. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America - they supported the "national bourgeoisie", declaring that socialist revolution was impossible. The Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions were possible only because new revolutionary organizations bypassed Kremlin-sponsored reformism.

All this reformism aimed at supporting the diplomatic interests of the USSR. The hope was that the capitalists would make deals with the USSR in exchange for CP support. That's what "socialism in one country" meant in practice.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 06:13 am
I am an old marxist .It was period of Veitnam war .We all freinds were supporters of Veitnam .
Since you've mentioned Vietnam, let me point you to this recent thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60065) on Stalinism and Trotskyism in Vietnam.


want to know what were basic defirences between Stalin and Trotsky .I am member of this forum .My freinds are saying that this is group of trotskiests .Save yourself from these so called comrades .

I went into the historical issues in my last post. It's good to be clear on these things.

But is that really a good way to decide your attitude towards these groups? No. Neither "Stalinist" nor "Trotskyist" groups are necessarily what they were in the past.

"Stalinist" groups are no longer reformist out of orders from Moscow or Beijing - they're just reformist, making themselves into ordinary social-democratic parties in most cases.

"Trotskyist" groups are all over the map. Most have liitle to do with Trotsky historically (unfortunately.) Look at what they do, more than what positions they take on historical questions. Actions speak louder than words!

And work with anyone if that'll advance the interests and class consciousness of working people.