Trotsky

[peterson2k4]

I know that Stalin was an awful dictator who destroyed what communism really stood for. Stalin also had Trotsky kill so he could take power.

My question is, If Trotsky did take control after Lenin how would the Soviet Union end up?
would we still have a communist Russia and if so how would the U.S. get along with them?

thak you for your time

[red head]

as much as i hate to admit it, if trotsky had taken power, we may not have won WWII. stalin was a horrible person, but he was primarily responsible for the defeat of nazi germany.

[Moskitto]

Yeah but Trotsky was Far more militaristic, He would have supported the Spanish revolution, Russia would have been far more democratic. There wouldn't be the Nazi-Soviet pact, There would be 2 fronts right from the start of WW2. It basicly would have been a whole lot better.

[Freiheit]

what were trotsky's ideals and idea then?

[MadMarx]

It is that way; that those who spend their time under soviet regime or in working camps in the USSR during the second world war now have an anti-communistic attitude and those who were under the nationalsocialistic regime or in concentration camps have a hatred against the nazis and have rather fashistic attitudes... So you notice something? It is just the point of view. I think the SU is the main problem in our fight...it made a very bad image of tour communism.

[cullinane]

To say that Trotsky would have changed the course of the Soviet Union is historical simplicity. Its anti-materialist opinion, because it presupposes that one man acting on his own can change the entire social conditions of a given historical epoch. Much of Stalin's behaviour can be explained by the social context prevalent during his time as General Secretary. Its unlikely Trotsky in comparison to Stalin would have faired much differently given many of the social constraints facing the USSR at the time.

For all those socialists who try to pass off Trotsky as a more "humane" figure, they seem to have forgotten Trotsky's actions at Kronstadt. Trotskyists can equally be accused of 'hero worship' as much as any Stalinist can. Trotsky has been given super-human qualities almost.

However, its now inconsequential to abstract whether or not things would have been 'better' or not with Trotsky in power.

[red head]

how could anyone be more militaristic than stalin? stalin was essentially a fascist, and fascism is a system that imposes a militaristic life on all people in its country. militarism, to me at least, implies a more right-wing system and trotsky was definately not more right-wing than stalin. militarism has always seemed to be a characteristic of a less democratic system, so how could he be more militaristic and at the same time more democratic than stalin?

[Moskitto]

Trotsky believed in Freedom of speach but with a one party system (Which like my signiture says I think doesn't work). Also he believed in helping other countries with revolutions so rather than concentrating on 5 year plans he would have started helping other communists.

Then again neither of them were that great, but Trotsky was the best out of the 2.

Rosa Luxemburg Rules!!!

[cullinane]

>he believed in helping other countries with revolutions >so rather than concentrating on 5 year plans he would >have started helping other communists

This comes back to the argument of continuing the revolution as opposed to building socialism in one country. However Stalin and the USSR did help communists and non-communists in foreign countries.

Stalin and the USSR were not opposed to international workers revolution. Russia and China long gave aid to developing movements in for example Asia in Vietnam, the Korean War and Africa in Angola, Congo etc. It was the Soviet Union that eventually gave Cuba its socialist character. Cuba itself gave aid to developing movements in Africa and Latin America. Chinese Communists said ‘the East Wind Prevails over the West’ which can be translated as now that our bloc is stronger than yours, lets use it to socialism's advantage. If anything, wouldn’t the so-called ‘social imperialists’ have welcomed new revolutions to enlarge their sphere of influence?

Trotskys attitude to "freedom of speech" was no different than that of Stalin's when the specific conditions were placed upon him. Socialists today most advance beyong simplistic one dimensional 'anaylsis' of historical subjectivity

[Moskitto]

yeah I prefer Rosa Luxemburg anyway.

[Moskitto]

Ignore this

(Edited by Moskitto at 5:38 pm on Dec. 2, 2001)

[Karo Chevez]

Were Trotsky to have succeeded Lenin rather than Stalin the
USSR would doubtlessly have been the nucleus of a socialist
revolution on an international scale.Trotsky believed in the
concept of permanent revolution,whereas Stalin,although he
was gifted in the theories of Marxism,he allowed himself to
give way to ego as displayed by his personality cult,and he
persecuted,imprisoned,and murdered other socialists,these are not the acts of a true socialist,and his reign commenced
a succession of tyrants that cared more for power,prestige,
and the deification of the state rather than the liberation
of oppressed nations held hostage by the worshippers of the
money-god.Stalin was a prolific writer,as was Lenin,Trotsky
and others,and in the quest for pure socialism one should
read and study the writings of all socialist thinkers that
one deems worthy of attention;however,we must avoid becoming
self-proclaimed disciples of certain socialists while at the
same time attacking others thereby degrading socialism to a
religion with Marx as the annointed prophet of the salvation
of dialectic materialism insomuch that you become a follower
of a so-called disciple of Marx and begin to call yourself a
Leninist,Trotskyite,etc.Communism as conceived by Marx and Engels as being a classless and stateless society is lacking
in terms of human inneraction,for whether rights are given to individuals or to society as a whole,there must exist a
coercive state to enforce those rights and the best we can dare hope achieve is a socialist society,for this reason I
refuse to be considered a communist,and as for being called
a Marxist,I find this as ridiculous as a physicist being called a Newtonian.I am a socialist,and in a society that is
dominated by democratic capitalism with its emphasis on the
wealth and power of a select few over the masses of people
that labor to keep their oppressors in power,I have no other
recourse but to be inflamed with a revolutionary spirit.Then
of course there is religion which is the sacred instrument of kings and priests which calls to mind something I once read,that freedom will come when the last king is hanged by the entrails of the last priest,even Napoleon understood the
power of religion by saying that religion is what keeps the
poor from murdering the rich",besides,a boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth.-Karo

[red head]

well said karo, but i disagree about communism lacking human interaction. if the mass of the people reap all the benefits of production, the more that is produced, the more everyone gains. since people are always looking to make things better for themselves, they will work together to increase total production and not just personal production. and i don't think its necessarily wrong for someone to call themselves a trotskyist. like any other label, it can be good in that it gives people a more immediate picture of your ideals. when labels become dangerous is when people altar their ideas to fit within a label. so i think someone can call themselves a trotskyist and disagree with some actions or ideas of trotsky.