Marxism-Leninism VS. Trotskysm

[Revolution Hero]

According to the "Dictionary of the Scientific Communism" :
" Trotskysm is the petty -bourgeoise opportunist ideological and political movement, which is HOSTILE TO THE MARXISM-LENINISM. It appeared in the 1903, as THE REACTION ON THE LENINIST STAGE OF THE MARXIST THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND ON THE BIRTH OF THE NEW TYPE COMMUNIST PARTY. Trotskysm disguised it's opportunist and menshevist essence , BY THE WORDY ADHERENCE TO THE MARXISM. ( very important, as this fact makes politologists confused, and that is why they call Trotskysm to be one of the branches of Leninism). IT TRIED TO REPLACE LENIN'S TEACHINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH TROTSKY'S IDEAS.
"Theory of the permanent revolution" became the ideological base of the Trotskysm. The idea of the " permanent revolution" parazitized on the Marx's idea of the continuous revolution and was AIMED AGAINST LENINIST TEACHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOURGEOISE -DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION INTO THE SOCIALIST ONE.
TROTSKY ATTACKED LENINISM IN THE LAST YEARS OF LENIN'S LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY AFTER HIS DEATH, TRYING TO REPLACE LENINISM WITH TROTSKYM ( also an important fact).
Trotsky misinterpreted the history of the October's revolution, depreciated the roles of the communist party and Lenin. At the same time Trotsky tried to undermine party's unity by declaring factions' freedom and opposing the youth to the elder generation.
Modern Trotskysm is the anti-socialistic trend. It strengthened the reactionary essence of Trotsky's ideas about the impossibility of the victory of the socialism in one country. According to the trotskysts' statement, the proletariat of one country or the groups of countries can't and must not build socialism after taking the power in their hands, but it has to work towards the world revolution, without which proletariat state is doomed on the degeneration.
Trotskysts declared the victorious socialism to be the "society of the transitional period", and socialist states to be " the workers' states", some of which have already degenerated, while others are in the process of their degeneration. Trotskysm is against the peaceful coexistence of the states, which have different social systems, they are against the development of the international collaboration.

Marxist-Leninist communist parties consider the struggle against Trotskysm as one of the most important ideological task."

Red Encyclopedia sucks.

[new democracy]

well i hate the Red Encyclopedia too, but not because i dont agree with communism but because the guy that make that site has no political ideology. if you ask him what kind of leftist he is he will just say that he believes in leftist unity. he dont have a political ideology!!!!

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 9:28 am on Aug. 29, 2002
According to the "Dictionary of the Scientific Communism" :
" Trotskysm is the petty -bourgeoise opportunist ideological and political movement, which is HOSTILE TO THE MARXISM-LENINISM. It appeared in the 1903, as THE REACTION ON THE LENINIST STAGE OF THE MARXIST THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND ON THE BIRTH OF THE NEW TYPE COMMUNIST PARTY. Trotskysm disguised it's opportunist and menshevist essence , BY THE WORDY ADHERENCE TO THE MARXISM. ( very important, as this fact makes politologists confused, and that is why they call Trotskysm to be one of the branches of Leninism). IT TRIED TO REPLACE LENIN'S TEACHINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH TROTSKY'S IDEAS.
"Theory of the permanent revolution" became the ideological base of the Trotskysm. The idea of the " permanent revolution" parazitized on the Marx's idea of the continuous revolution and was AIMED AGAINST LENINIST TEACHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOURGEOISE -DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION INTO THE SOCIALIST ONE.
TROTSKY ATTACKED LENINISM IN THE LAST YEARS OF LENIN'S LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY AFTER HIS DEATH, TRYING TO REPLACE LENINISM WITH TROTSKYM ( also an important fact).
Trotsky misinterpreted the history of the October's revolution, depreciated the roles of the communist party and Lenin. At the same time Trotsky tried to undermine party's unity by declaring factions' freedom and opposing the youth to the elder generation.
Modern Trotskysm is the anti-socialistic trend. It strengthened the reactionary essence of Trotsky's ideas about the impossibility of the victory of the socialism in one country. According to the trotskysts' statement, the proletariat of one country or the groups of countries can't and must not build socialism after taking the power in their hands, but it has to work towards the world revolution, without which proletariat state is doomed on the degeneration.
Trotskysts declared the victorious socialism to be the "society of the transitional period", and socialist states to be " the workers' states", some of which have already degenerated, while others are in the process of their degeneration. Trotskysm is against the peaceful coexistence of the states, which have different social systems, they are against the development of the international collaboration.

Marxist-Leninist communist parties consider the struggle against Trotskysm as one of the most important ideological task."

Red Encyclopedia sucks.


LOL! This is defently not an objective view of Trotzkyism, it's obviesly written by some anti-trotzkyist, so it's totally irrelavant.

[Michael De Panama]

You know, this was obviously written by a Stalinist.

[Maaja]

This was definitely written by a Stalinist. Because the so called 'Scientific communism' was only the ideology of THE SOVIET UNION. So a person who believes everything that is written there and agrees with it... does also absolutely support the USSR. But was USSR ever objective? I don't think so...

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Malte on 6:23 am on Aug. 30, 2002

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 9:28 am on Aug. 29, 2002
According to the "Dictionary of the Scientific Communism" :
" Trotskysm is the petty -bourgeoise opportunist ideological and political movement, which is HOSTILE TO THE MARXISM-LENINISM. It appeared in the 1903, as THE REACTION ON THE LENINIST STAGE OF THE MARXIST THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND ON THE BIRTH OF THE NEW TYPE COMMUNIST PARTY. Trotskysm disguised it's opportunist and menshevist essence , BY THE WORDY ADHERENCE TO THE MARXISM. ( very important, as this fact makes politologists confused, and that is why they call Trotskysm to be one of the branches of Leninism). IT TRIED TO REPLACE LENIN'S TEACHINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH TROTSKY'S IDEAS.
"Theory of the permanent revolution" became the ideological base of the Trotskysm. The idea of the " permanent revolution" parazitized on the Marx's idea of the continuous revolution and was AIMED AGAINST LENINIST TEACHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOURGEOISE -DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION INTO THE SOCIALIST ONE.
TROTSKY ATTACKED LENINISM IN THE LAST YEARS OF LENIN'S LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY AFTER HIS DEATH, TRYING TO REPLACE LENINISM WITH TROTSKYM ( also an important fact).
Trotsky misinterpreted the history of the October's revolution, depreciated the roles of the communist party and Lenin. At the same time Trotsky tried to undermine party's unity by declaring factions' freedom and opposing the youth to the elder generation.
Modern Trotskysm is the anti-socialistic trend. It strengthened the reactionary essence of Trotsky's ideas about the impossibility of the victory of the socialism in one country. According to the trotskysts' statement, the proletariat of one country or the groups of countries can't and must not build socialism after taking the power in their hands, but it has to work towards the world revolution, without which proletariat state is doomed on the degeneration.
Trotskysts declared the victorious socialism to be the "society of the transitional period", and socialist states to be " the workers' states", some of which have already degenerated, while others are in the process of their degeneration. Trotskysm is against the peaceful coexistence of the states, which have different social systems, they are against the development of the international collaboration.

Marxist-Leninist communist parties consider the struggle against Trotskysm as one of the most important ideological task."

Red Encyclopedia sucks.


LOL! This is defently not an objective view of Trotzkyism, it's obviesly written by some anti-trotzkyist, so it's totally irrelavant.


At least it proves that Trotskysm is not the branch of Leninism. As you know, Soviet Union, was a marxist-leninist state, and that is why soviet theoretics objectively criticized Trotskysm.

If you say that this is not objective, can you please be so kind and post an "objective" view of trotskysm. But don't use the ideas of modern trotskysm, as these guys are SUBJECTIVE, they have different ideas about trotsky's theory. For example, some say that the proletariat is the only motive power of the revolution, others say that the peasantry is.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:51 am on Aug. 30, 2002
You know, this was obviously written by a Stalinist.


You are mistaken. It was written by a marxist-leninist. As one can criticize trotskysm only on the base of the marxist-leninist theory.


TROTSKY WAS MENSHEVIK AND RENEGADE!

[Son of Scargill]

And he was right;)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/photo/t1918a.jpg

[Revolution Hero]

And later he became counter-revolutionist.

[Son of Scargill]

Countering a revolution that had lost forward impetus and was turning in on itself,on its own revolutionaries.Abandoning the workers of the imperialist nations in order to hold on to the small gains they had made.
I'm not saying that there was much choice to this decision,but the big picture was lost,eventually leading to the withering down of the influence,over time,that the soviets had at that point in time.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Son of Scargill on 7:50 pm on Aug. 30, 2002
Countering a revolution that had lost forward impetus and was turning in on itself,on its own revolutionaries.Abandoning the workers of the imperialist nations in order to hold on to the small gains they had made.
.

So, you say , that USSR and it's RED ARMY, under Trotsky's leadership, had to join the World Revolution. According to Trotsky and you, Red Army's mission was to free the european proletariat, and after this mission would be accomplished they have to save the whole world from the capitalist exploitation.

That is not what Marxis-Leninism is about. The revolution have to start naturally inside a definite state. It can't be forcefully brought in from the outside world. Export of the revolution always result in the failure. This was proved on the Bolivian Che's example.

[Revolution Hero]

Another facts, which prove that Trotskysm can't be a branch of Leninism:

Trotsky was against the deduction , which was formulated by Lenin in 1915, abot the possibility of the primarily socialist victory in one country or sever countries.

Trotsky was called traitor and renegade in Lenin's works. Lenin called him Judas, as Trotsky betrayed Bolsheviks, just like Judas betrayed Jesus.

Trotskysm became the developed anti-leninist ideology in 1923-24. Trotsky's new thesis negated the leninist teaching about the possibility of the socialist building in the USSR. Trotsky said that Soviet socialism wouldn't survive in the first years of it's existence without the help of the european proletariat. The course of history showed that he was wrong.

[Maaja]

It's smart from you to ask me what and who is objective. Actually everything is somewhat subjective. But it's obvious that Sovietic politis were very very subjective and deformed a lot the real faces of different things.

[Marxman]

Please, once and 4 all leave Trotsky and let him rest and peace. Some of you stalinists obviously have no sense of respect to anyone. If you offend Trotsky, you offend Lenin. This thread is a complete nonsense and a lie. Trotskyism is a word made by stalinists in order to slander Trotsky's ideas. Let me quote this from a great book called "Bolshevism:the road to revolution." It might explain to some stalinists what Trotsky had to do with Mensheviks. It's a chapter called "Trotsky and conciliationism."

Trotsky and Conciliationism

Trotsky thought it was possible to unite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, or, to be more accurate, the left wing tendency in Menshevism represented especially by Martov. He was not the only one. Lenin himself was attracted more than once to the idea of unity with Martov, whose personal and political qualities he always recognised. Lunacharsky recalls that as late as 1917, Lenin dreamed of a bloc with Martov. At this time certainly Lenin held out hopes that Martov would come over: “The next spell of emigration struck Martov a very hard blow; never, perhaps, had his tendency to vacillate been so marked nor probably so agonising. The right wing of Menshevism soon began to go rotten, deviating into so-called ‘liquidationism’. Martov had no wish to be drawn into this petty bourgeois disintegration of the revolutionary spirit. But the ‘liquidators’ had a hold on Dan and Dan on Martov and as usual the heavy ‘tail’ of Menshevism dragged Martov to the bottom. There was a moment when he would literally have made a pact with Lenin, urged to do so by Trotsky and Innokenty, who were dreaming of forming a powerful centre to counter the extreme left and the extreme right.

“This line, as we know, was also strongly supported by Plekhanov, but the idyll did not last long, rightism gained the upper hand with Martov and the same discord between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks broke out again.

“Martov was then living in Paris. I was told that he had even begun to go slightly to seed, always a lurking danger for émigrés. Politics was degenerating into an affair of petty squabbles and a passion for bohemian café life was beginning to threaten him with a diminution of his intellectual powers. However, when the war came Martov not only pulled himself together but from the start took up an extremely resolute position.”[113]

Trotsky hoped that all the left wing elements might come together, on the basis of a break with the extreme right-wing liquidators and the ultra-left Bolsheviks. Although politically close to Bolshevism, Trotsky was critical of what he saw as Lenin’s “factionalism”. He nursed the hope that the left wing of Menshevism would, in time, break with the right, and Lenin’s seeming intransigence infuriated him. From October 1908, he succeeded in publishing a paper called Pravda (The Truth) intended for illegal circulation in Russia, which was a big success. Pravda was published in Vienna and financed by two wealthy sympathisers, Adolf Joffe, the future outstanding Soviet diplomat who was later to commit suicide in protest against the Stalinist bureaucracy, and M.I. Skobelev, the son of a Baku oil magnate, who later re-emerged as a minister in the Provisional Government. Part of the new paper’s success was that it wrote in a lively and popular style and avoided the strident factional tone that characterised other underground Social Democratic publications. Instead of attacking other publications and groups, it concentrated on denouncing the problems of the working class and attempted to find common ground between the Bolsheviks and left Mensheviks. This was very popular with the workers in Russia, but profoundly irritated Lenin who was involved in a struggle on two fronts and suspicious of unity-mongering. But Lenin now found himself in a minority in the leadership of his own faction, where conciliationist tendencies were strong.

Trotsky’s wrong position on organisation was the source of endless disputes with Lenin. The period under consideration witnessed the sharpest of clashes between Lenin and Trotsky in which Lenin heatedly denounced “Trotskyism”. But it is clear that for Lenin “Trotskyism” was synonimous with Trotsky’s position on organisation (i.e. conciliation) and not at all his political views which were close to Bolshevism. Moreover, the sharpness of the polemics between the two men had another explanation, which is not immediately obvious to the modern reader. The harshness of Lenin’s language in these polemics was dictated by the fact that, under the guise of “Trotskyism”, he was really attacking conciliatory tendencies in the leadership of his own faction. But the real story was for a long time suppressed beneath a thick layer of lies and distortions aimed at justifying the Stalinist bureaucracy and blackening the names of the Old Bolsheviks who fought against it.

In fact, for a time, Trotsky actually appeared to be on the point of succeeding. Many Bolshevik leaders were in agreement with him on the question of unity—that is, they supported precisely the weakest side of Trotsky’s position, not the strongest. On the Central Committee, the Bolsheviks N.A. Rozhkov and V.P. Nogin were conciliators. Krupskaya commented ironically that “Nogin was a conciliator who was out to unite all and everyone”.[114] So were Kamenev and Zinoviev. Given the popularity of Trotsky’s paper with workers in Russia, a number of Bolshevik leaders were in favour of using Pravda for the purpose of bringing about a fusion of Bolsheviks and Pro-Party Mensheviks. At the Paris meeting of the Proletary editorial board, Kamenev and Zinoviev, now Lenin’s closest collaborators proposed the closing down of Proletary and moved that Pravda should be accepted as the official organ of the Central Committee of the RSDLP. This position was also supported by others like Tomsky and Rykov. The proposal was passed against the opposition of Lenin, who counter-proposed the setting up of a popular Bolshevik paper and monthly theoretical journal. In the end, a compromise was reached whereby Proletary would still come out, but not more than once a month. Meanwhile it was agreed to enter into negotiations with Trotsky with a view to making the Vienna Pravda the official organ of the RSDLP CC. This fact shows the strength of the conciliationist tendencies in the ranks of the Bolsheviks, and also tells us quite a lot about the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards Trotsky in this period. The minutes of the meeting of Proletary referred to were published in 1934, in order to discredit Zinoviev and Kamenev before their murder by Stalin. But were later consigned to the Archives and hardly ever referred to.[115]

Lenin was increasingly isolated within his own faction, and compelled to make concessions against his better judgement just to hold things together. The psychology of the Bolshevik conciliators was conditioned by the kind of “practical politics” which prides itself on its haughty contempt for theory and principle, and is always looking for short cuts that, in the end, always turn out to be the opposite. This philistine mentality always regards a struggle for principles as “sectarianism”, an accusation that was frequently levelled against Lenin by his opponents. Kamenev and his fellow conciliators regarded themselves as infinitely wiser and more practical than Lenin, perhaps not on theory, but in the practical search for solutions to the party’s ills. In November 1908, Kamenev wrote to Bogdanov: “In the ‘squabble’ that has started here I stand in the ‘middle of the road’ line and hope to stay there … I feel that just as the struggle against conciliation was binding on me in 1904, so conciliation is equally binding on me now.”[116]

As late as 1912, when Lenin had already firmly set out on the course of a final split with the opportunists, a significant part of the leadership dragged their feet, as Krupskaya points out: “Obviously, there could be no room in the Party for people who had made up their minds beforehand that they would not abide by the Party decisions. With some comrades, however, the struggle for the Party assumed the form of conciliation; they lost sight of the aim of unity and relapsed into a man-of-the-street striving to unite all and everyone, no matter what they stood for. Even Innokenty, who fully subscribed to Ilyich’s opinion that the main thing was to unite with the Pro-Party-Mensheviks, the Plekhanovites, was so keen to preserve the Party that he began himself to incline towards a conciliatory attitude. Ilyich set him right, however.”[117]

In retrospect, it seems inexplicable that Trotsky should have wasted so much time in attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. But he was not the only one who failed to understand what Lenin was driving at. It is sufficient to mention the name of Rosa Luxemburg to make the point. Like Rosa, Trotsky was mistaken, but his mistake was that of a sincere revolutionary with the interests of the working class and socialism at heart. Most probably the source of his error was also similar to hers. Rosa Luxemburg was early repelled by the centralised bureaucratic machine of the German SPD and, over-reacting to it, tended to reject centralism per se. Not fully understanding Lenin’s position, and taking as gospel the caricature of the Mensheviks, she subjected his organisational ideas to a harsh and unjust criticism that partially clouded their relations, although politically they usually stood on the same side. Trotsky was repelled by the narrowness of the Bolshevik committee-men, who sought to reduce the most complex political questions to simple organisational problems, and presented the dialectical relation between the class and the party in a mechanical way that at times resembled a caricature, as when the Bolshevik committee-men in St Petersburg demanded that the St Petersburg Soviet dissolve itself when it refused to accept the leadership of the party. Trotsky was inclined to base his opinion of Bolshevism, not on Lenin, but on a mechanical caricature of Lenin’s ideas which passed for Bolshevism in certain circles. This kept him at a distance, despite the closeness of his political views with those of Lenin, right up to 1917, when the actual experience of the revolution caused all the old disagreements to dissolve.

In later years Trotsky admitted that on this question Lenin had always been in the right. In his autobiography Trotsky explains the basis of his error: “In its view of the future of Menshevism, and of the problems of organisation within the party, the Pravda never arrived at the preciseness of Lenin’s attitude. I was still hoping that the new revolution would force the Mensheviks—as had that of 1905—to follow a revolutionary path. But I underestimated the importance of preparatory ideological selection and of political case-hardening. In questions of the inner development of the party I was guilty of a sort of social-revolutionary fatalism. This was a mistaken stand, but it was vastly superior to that bureaucratic fatalism, devoid of ideas, which distinguishes the majority of my present-day critics in the camp of the Communist International.”[118]

After Lenin’s death, as part of an unscrupulous campaign to blacken Trotsky’s name, the Stalinists deliberately exaggerated the significance of the differences between Lenin and Trotsky. But these old polemics ceased to have any interest for Lenin after 1917 when Trotsky joined the Bolshevik Party and took a firm stand against conciliationism. In November 1917, that is, after the October revolution, the “Old Bolsheviks” Kamenev and Zinoviev advocated the formation of a coalition government with the Mensheviks. At that time, Lenin said: “As for coalition, I cannot speak about that seriously. Trotsky long ago said that a union was impossible. Trotsky understood this, and from that time there has been no better Bolshevik.”[119]

[Cassius Clay]

You say that Lenin dreamed of reuniting with the Mensheviks up until 1917. Stalin supported this along with almost every other Bolshevik in 1917, but when Lenin returned to Russia from Switzerland in April he was furious that the mere idea had been suggested.

[Marxman]

Are you delibiretaly slandering me? I never said Lenin wanted to unite Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. On the contrary, Lenin hated the idea and he knew that it was a futile attempt to do that. Trotsky wanted to unite M and B but I guess you didn't read the chapter that I've postem so I am not going to waste my time explaining that. I can only say that Stalin was a big trouble maker when Lenin was abroad. Do you know that he made a coup in Georgia? Of course Lenin was furious and even Trotsky. If Stalin would've succeeded in uniting with Mensheviks, all hopes for the socialist revolution would be lost completely. Menshevism represents reformism, not revolutionism and it represents centrism.

[Turnoviseous]

I have opened here a thread about Lenin´s views of Stalin. There are a few of letters that show that Stalin was against Lenin´s policies.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=905 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=905)

[Turnoviseous]

Trotsky was against the deduction , which was formulated by Lenin in 1915, abot the possibility of the primarily socialist victory in one country or sever countries.

Of course, he was right. And Lenin himself admitted that he was right. You have countries like USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cambodia for socialist countries. They failed and I counted 9 of them. So you say that socialism won, when all these countries actually lost?

Trotsky was called traitor and renegade in Lenin's works. Lenin called him Judas, as Trotsky betrayed Bolsheviks, just like Judas betrayed Jesus.

Nope, not true. There is a whole book on the subject of Trotsky and Lenin on net :

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

If you are too lazy I can also quote from full LCW (not Stalinist 7 volumed version).

And I would also like from you to quote any sourced of Lenin you have to prove your right.

Trotskysm became the developed anti-leninist ideology in 1923-24. Trotsky's new thesis negated the leninist teaching about the possibility of the socialist building in the USSR. Trotsky said that Soviet socialism wouldn't survive in the first years of it's existence without the help of the european proletariat. The course of history showed that he was wrong.

Lenin never said that socialism can be built in USSR alone.

"We have made the start," wrote Lenin on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution. "When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nations will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown."

For Lenin, the first significance of the Russian Revolution was the example it provided in the eyes of the workers of the world. The failure of the revolutionary wave which swept across Europe in the period 1918-21 was the decisive factor in the subsequent development. On the basis of a victorious European revolution, the enormous potential mineral wealth of Russia, its vast labour force, could have been linked to the science, technique and industry of Germany, Britain and France. A Socialist United States of Europe could have transformed the lives of the peoples of Europe and Asia and opened the way for a Socialist World Federation. Instead, as a result of the cowardice and ineptitude of the labour leaders, the European working classes faced decades of hardship, unemployment, Fascism and a new World War. On the other hand, the isolation of the only workers' state in the world in a backward, peasant country, opened the door to bureaucratic degeneration and Stalinist reaction.

Lenins´ intenationalism:

"Everywhere we issue the call for a world workers' revolution Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrasemaking, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along the road of [!] world [!] socialist revolution upon which we have set out."
Lenin. (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 160-1.)

So Lenin was Trotskyst then. Or in normal words, Trotsky was a Leninist.


Stalin´s "internationalism":

"Howard: Does this statement of yours mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions to bring about a world revolution?
Stalin: We never had any such plans or intentions.
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt Mr Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression?
Stalin: This is the product of misunderstanding.
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin: No, comic. Or perhaps tragi-comicÉ"
Roy Howard and Stalin. (Roy Howard-Stalin interview, March/April, Communist International, 1936.)

"US rightwing forces and propaganda portray our interest in Latin America as an intention to engineer a series of socialist revolutions there. Nonsense! The way we have behaved for decades proves that we don't plan anything of the kind."
Mikhail Gorbachov. (Mikhail Gorbachov, Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World, pp. 187-8.)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Marxman on 2:46 am on Sep. 1, 2002
Please, once and 4 all leave Trotsky and let him rest and peace. Some of you stalinists obviously have no sense of respect to anyone. If you offend Trotsky, you offend Lenin. This thread is a complete nonsense and a lie. Trotskyism is a word made by stalinists in order to slander Trotsky's ideas.


I offend Trotsky, and defend Lenin.
All of you have this stereotype , that SINCE STALIN WAS PRETTY MUCH AGAINST TROTSKY, THEN EVERY PERSON WHO IS AGAINST TROTSKYSM IS A STALINIST. That is the most ignorrant opinion I have ever heard.
Trotsky wanted a freedom of factions in the communist party. He hoped that if his menshevist faction have become independent, then he would have been able to replace Leninism with the Trotskysm. He wanted to become a leader. Lenin and all of the bolsheviks were for the unity of the party structure and that is why the majority of the party, which was presented by the Bolsheviks, voted against Trotsky's suggestion.



Most of you attack Stalinism, but Trotskysm is even worse than Stalinism.

[Revolution Hero]

"Of course, he was right. And Lenin himself admitted that he was right. You have countries like USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cambodia for socialist countries. They failed and I counted 9 of them. So you say that socialism won, when all these countries actually lost? "

You didn't get the point. It was about the socialist revolution victory in one or several countries. Socialist revolution won in all of the listed by you countries. And, yes socialism won, it doesn't matter if it failed after.


"Nope, not true. There is a whole book on the subject of Trotsky and Lenin on net : "

Your book is subjective lie. There is Lenin's work called "Judas Trotsky".!!!! You better read more of Lenin' s works, than look at a suspicious books.


" Lenin never said that socialism can be built in USSR alone.

"We have made the start," wrote Lenin on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution. "When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nations will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown"


My point was that Trotsky's opinion was that the socialist state couldn't survive in the capitalist world without the help of the proletariat of another countries. Lenin said that we could survive, but the example had already been shown by us, so other countries can become socialist too.


"So Lenin was Trotskyst then. Or in normal words, Trotsky was a Leninist"

Lenin was Bolshevik. Trotsky had been Bolshevik, then he had become Menshevik and centrist, after that he had become Bolshevik again, and took a menshevist position after. How this man could be Leninist? If he had been Leninist he wouldn't have changed his mind so many times. That is why Lenin called Trotsky PROSTITUTE OF THE IMPERIALISM!


"Stalin´s "internationalism": "

We don't talk about Stalin here.

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 9:54 am on Sep. 2, 2002
"Of course, he was right. And Lenin himself admitted that he was right. You have countries like USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cambodia for socialist countries. They failed and I counted 9 of them. So you say that socialism won, when all these countries actually lost? "

You didn't get the point. It was about the socialist revolution victory in one or several countries. Socialist revolution won in all of the listed by you countries. And, yes socialism won, it doesn't matter if it failed after.


"Nope, not true. There is a whole book on the subject of Trotsky and Lenin on net : "

Your book is subjective lie. There is Lenin's work called "Judas Trotsky".!!!! You better read more of Lenin' s works, than look at a suspicious books.


" Lenin never said that socialism can be built in USSR alone.

"We have made the start," wrote Lenin on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution. "When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nations will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown"


My point was that Trotsky's opinion was that the socialist state couldn't survive in the capitalist world without the help of the proletariat of another countries. Lenin said that we could survive, but the example had already been shown by us, so other countries can become socialist too.


"So Lenin was Trotskyst then. Or in normal words, Trotsky was a Leninist"

Lenin was Bolshevik. Trotsky had been Bolshevik, then he had become Menshevik and centrist, after that he had become Bolshevik again, and took a menshevist position after. How this man could be Leninist? If he had been Leninist he wouldn't have changed his mind so many times. That is why Lenin called Trotsky PROSTITUTE OF THE IMPERIALISM!


"Stalin´s "internationalism": "

We don't talk about Stalin here.


lol, post some of the quotes from Lenin to justify your statements. You can say that car flies, but if you can´t justify that it is of a little of significance. I have justified it that he was Leninst and that Stalin was not (with many posts and quotes from Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin). It is your turn now.

So you admit that Stalin was against LEnin?

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 10:10 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Turnoviseous]

I offend Trotsky, and defend Lenin.
All of you have this stereotype , that SINCE STALIN WAS PRETTY MUCH AGAINST TROTSKY, THEN EVERY PERSON WHO IS AGAINST TROTSKYSM IS A STALINIST. That is the most ignorrant opinion I have ever heard.
Trotsky wanted a freedom of factions in the communist party. He hoped that if his menshevist faction have become independent, then he would have been able to replace Leninism with the Trotskysm. He wanted to become a leader. Lenin and all of the bolsheviks were for the unity of the party structure and that is why the majority of the party, which was presented by the Bolsheviks, voted against Trotsky's suggestion.

No, as I said that Lenin and Trotsky were together in deeds and theories from the days revolution in 1905 started.

Trotsky was not a Menshevik nor a Bolshevik. He stayed out of both wings. But from his writtings and ideas it canbe seen that he was the Bolshevik in deeds.
Even Lenin said that "there had been no better Bolshevik than Trotksy".

Prove me wrong if you can, you Stalinist fuck! You can not falsify facts and history!

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 10:26 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 8:24 am on Sep. 3, 2002
I offend Trotsky, and defend Lenin.
All of you have this stereotype , that SINCE STALIN WAS PRETTY MUCH AGAINST TROTSKY, THEN EVERY PERSON WHO IS AGAINST TROTSKYSM IS A STALINIST. That is the most ignorrant opinion I have ever heard.
Trotsky wanted a freedom of factions in the communist party. He hoped that if his menshevist faction have become independent, then he would have been able to replace Leninism with the Trotskysm. He wanted to become a leader. Lenin and all of the bolsheviks were for the unity of the party structure and that is why the majority of the party, which was presented by the Bolsheviks, voted against Trotsky's suggestion.

No, as I said that Lenin and Trotsky were together in deeds and theories from the days revolution in 1905 started.

Trotsky was not a Menshevik nor a Bolshevik. He stayed out of both wings. But from his writtings and ideas it canbe seen that he was the Bolshevik in deeds.
Even Lenin said that "there had been no better Bolshevik than Trotksy".

Prove me wrong if you can, you Stalinist fuck! You can not falsify facts and history!

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 10:26 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)



Listen up, you stupid Trotskyst. I am not Stalinist, I criticize Trotsky from the Leninist positions. And you are very wrong and don't know the history. I don't falsify it and it is you who tries to lie about the true situation. You have made me very angry, but I don't want to write cusswords down. Here is some information for you:

Lenin wrote about Trotsky:
" Trotsky always equals himself= prevaricates, swindles, pose as leftist, helps to the right-wingers..." ( 5th edition, vol.49, p. 390 (vol.35, p.231))

Lenin criticized Trotsky for betraying the bolsheviks in the work " About the shame colour of Judas (!!!) Trotsky"( 5th edition, vol.20, p.96 (vol.17, p.25)) So, Lenin called Trotsky Judas. And that is true. You can't argue against the FACTS!!!


OBJECTIVE HISTORY.
Trotsky became one of the leaders of the "new opposition" in 1926. This group was against the party's policies, criticized party's decisions by using anti-leninist and opportunistic phrases. "New opposition" was basically a menshevist faction inside the bolsheviks' party.
Trotsky and his followers attacked bolsheviks. Hence, they atacked Lenin, as bolsheviks made the decisions which were based on the Leninist position.

[Revolution Hero]

According to the " History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union":

" Opportunistic elements tried to lead the party astray from the Leninist principles on the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Trotsky spoke in support of the industrial concentration and closing some of the biggest enterprises. This would have done a big harm to the heavy industry and set the working class against the party. Party's Central Committee voted Trotsky's offer down and pointed that it's acceptance would have lead to the political defeat of the Soviet Republic. 12th Congress supported Central Committee's decision.
Trotsky also suggested the idea of the "dictatorship of the industry". In his understanding this slogan meant the industrial development by the exploitation of the peasantry. The Congress voted this offer down , too. Such kind of policy would have lead to the split in the workers' and peasants' union and to the downfall of the Soviet system. The Congress underlined that the agriculture plays a very important role in the economy of the whole country."

The 12th Conress took place in the year 1923. Lenin was still alive and was against all of trotsky's suggestions. It is clear that Trotsky presented anti-leninist and anti-soviet views on this Congress. And it is just one of the numerous examples, which prove his menshevist position.

I am sorry for you if you still haven't understood the difference between Leninism and Trotskysm, between communism and anti-communism. I can post some more examples, so you would finally UNDERSTAND!!!

I am also sorry for you if you disagree with the information from the " Dictionary of the Scientific Communism", which contains in the first post, starting this thread. Scientific Communism is one of the most important parts of the Marxist-Leninist theory. If one doesn't respect Scientific Communism, then it means that he or she doesn't respect Marx and Lenin. Therefore, this person is not a true communist.

[Revolution Hero]

LOL.
Hey , troskysts, I hear nothing but a silence. Have nothing to say, don't you? Now, everybody will see , who was right and who was wrong!!!

[Maaja]

I may sound unintelligent for you but ther's an archaic saying:

Talking is silver, keeping silence is gold;)

Maybe your arguments are just too fake to answer. And you are already too blind to see anything else but your great Scientifical communism. So there's no need to waste time for talking to you, it wouldn't change anything. Good luck!;)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Maaja on 7:33 pm on Sep. 5, 2002
I may sound unintelligent for you but ther's an archaic saying:

Talking is silver, keeping silence is gold;)

Maybe your arguments are just too fake to answer. And you are already too blind to see anything else but your great Scientifical communism. So there's no need to waste time for talking to you, it wouldn't change anything. Good luck!;)

Thank you. You sounded very intelligent, but my arguements are not fake. You don't believe to the quotes, you don't believe to the history. You don't believe anything which is related to the USSR. That is your mistake.
And here comes the biggest question: Who is blind? Definitely , not me.

[Maaja]

I do have glasses and I really can't see very well. But I'm definitely not blind, not yet at least. I hope you will not wish me that kind of future. LOL

[Revolution Hero]

I have glasses too. But it doesn't mean that I can't see the truth.
That's OK , if you don't want to believe to the concrete facts. Maybe you will realize your mistake later. I hope you will.

[Revolution Hero]

Hey, trotskysts I have something more for you. I just wait for your comments on the information that you have now.

[Turnoviseous]

Maaja, I agree with you..

Although I always like to listen to the Stalinist lies. Keep posting your falsified things and cut-outs...

You have almost all answers in this thread..

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 11:52 pm on Sep. 22, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

These are not lies. It is true, objective HISTORY of the Communist Party.

[Maaja]

So my dear Revolution Rero, you are trying to tell us that USSR was the perfect (ok, well, let's not use this word because I already can imagine your reaction) but a very good and a 'real' communist country?! I am sure that most of the people here would never agree with you. Get real!!!!

[Revolution Hero]

Because most people here don't know the truth about USSR. They were taught lies about this great country by the bourgeoisie media, they were too open and that is their problem.

USSR= socialism. If one negate this, then this person is not marxist.

[Turnoviseous]

They were taught lies about this great country by the bourgeoisie media

Reactionary Hero,

I agree, bourgeois say it was a socislist country.

[Maaja]

I am with you Turnoviseous, altough USSR had some socialist elements. No unemployment or homeless people, I also have to admit that people were reading a lot more then they are not, it was a shame not to educate yourself (I am not talking about universities but about educating yourself by reading mostly). But that's it.

Reactionary Hero, I would forgive you what you are saying if you were with another backround. But you have also lived under USSR and you know mostly people who are too, that's why I think you are... wrong and somewhat ridiculous, sorry...

(Edited by Maaja at 7:51 am on Sep. 27, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 11:04 am on Sep. 27, 2002
They were taught lies about this great country by the bourgeoisie media

Reactionary Hero,

I agree, bourgeois say it was a socislist country.


Actually, this is the only true part among their blatant lie.

LOL.
By calling me reactionary, you both make reactionary yourself.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Maaja on 3:49 pm on Sep. 27, 2002
I am with you Turnoviseous, altough USSR had some socialist elements. No unemployment or homeless people, I also have to admit that people were reading a lot more then they are not, it was a shame not to educate yourself (I am not talking about universities but about educating yourself by reading mostly). But that's it.

Reactionary Hero, I would forgive you what you are saying if you were with another backround. But you have also lived under USSR and you know mostly people who are too, that's why I think you are... wrong and somewhat ridiculous, sorry...

(Edited by Maaja at 7:51 am on Sep. 27, 2002)


That was very nice of you, Maaja. I have to say you the following:
You call yourself Marxist, but you don't think like Marxist. If Marxist want to analyze a situation in a definite state, then this Marxist will not consider just social aspects of the internal situation, but marxist have to analyze economical and political situation before the social one. It is obvious that you don't even know what socialism is. I advise you to start learning with the following definition.

Socialism is the first, the lowest phase of the communism, as social economical formation. It comes after the socialist revolution and the transitional stage from capitalism to the socialism, directly replace capitalism as the result of the liquidation of the exploiter classes and the consolidation of the socialist public property on the means of production in all sectors of the national economy.

USSR possessed all of the features listed above, hence USSR is the socialist state.

[Cassius Clay]

''Reactionary Hero, I would forgive you what you are saying if you were with another backround. But you have also lived under USSR and you know mostly people who are too, that's why I think you are... wrong and somewhat ridiculous, sorry...''

Exactly the man (or woman) lived in the USSR, so he/she should know what he is talking about. While I actually share many of Enver Hoxha's views on the USSR's international policies to deny that it was NOT a Socialist country is to deny the Earth is round. Yes it made some mistakes but the key is to learn from those mistakes.

Revolution Hero. You are not the only poster around here that does NOT support Trotsky (His whole theory is just Imperialism under a differnt name and as for his 'labor armies' scheme that is nothing short of Fascism) and your posts are very imformative. It seems though that you restrict your posts to the 'Theory' forum. Somebody who actually lived in the USSR would be greatly apreciated in the History forum.

[Cassius Clay]

Sorry Typo that should be 'To deny it WAS a Socialist Country'

[Revolution Hero]

Cassius Clay, you are the man who knows the truth.Right now, I struggle against trotskyst, I consider it my obligation to defend the idea of Marxism- Leninism. That's why I am here for now.

I have lived in the USSR only for 8 years, and it wasn't Soviet State anymore. Gorbachev started his destructive reforms, but I really didn't understand what was happenning being that age old. But I have talked to the people who were elder than me, who actually had lived in the Soviet Union, and that is why I also know the truth.

Maaja also was born in the USSR. But due to the environment she lived in after the collapse of the USSR and to the reasons of her Estonian mentality, she is mistaken about it.

[pastradamus]

Why dont you just stop the bullshit RH.

Maaja only has "her Estonian mentality" because she knows about the wrongs that have gone on in her country & indeed others under the name "USSR"..

Your a stubborn fool looking for a reason for people to turn their head in your direction,like so many other communists in Russia.
In my opinion Russia needs some sort of social & political reform,to solve the health & crime crisis thats going on there.
But not in the authoritarian fashion it happened last time,Murdering innocent people isnt exactly making everybody equal now is it?

You have to read between the lines,Only then will you discover the evils that have gone on under the Name "USSR".

[Revolution Hero]

Pastradamus we talk mainly about post -Stalinist period of the USSR's development. Take it since 1953 till 1982. You tell me what was wrong!

And , pastradamus, you have lost the topic of our discussion Turnoviseous and Maaja declared USSR non- socialist state, which is not true. I advise you to read previous posts before you decide to give a rational reply.

[pastradamus]

The USSR is only reffered to as being a socialist state because there were no other big examples of leftist states really,& because the average idiot capitalist authour would refer to anything left-wing as being socialism & have thus made the word especially vague.


You dont know what was wrong with 1953-1982?
how about lack of liberty? lack of political opinion,lack of freedom in eastern bloc countries because the're under the thumb of the USSR.The devolopment of nuclear warheads capable of destroying the world hundreads of times oves.Almost causing a 3rd world war(and a nuclear one at that) against another evil state-the USA.

as you can imagine I could go on all day...

[Maaja]

Quote: from pastradamus on 4:17 pm on Sep. 30, 2002
as you can imagine I could go on all day...


GO, go, go, go!!!!

[peaccenicked]

http://www.apaginavermelha.hpg.ig.com.br/tleapv.htm
Lenin and Trotsky did not always see eye to eye but Trotsky had much more in common with Lenin than Stalin. Lenin was more able, and persuasive. Trotsky
also encouraged dialogue, at least more than Stalin
who on the contrary crushed dissent.

[peaccenicked]

Stalin was given too much leeway by Lenin and Trotsky.
This pro-Stalin account establishes that.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from pastradamus on 12:17 am on Oct. 1, 2002
The USSR is only reffered to as being a socialist state because there were no other big examples of leftist states really,& because the average idiot capitalist authour would refer to anything left-wing as being socialism & have thus made the word especially vague.


You dont know what was wrong with 1953-1982?
how about lack of liberty? lack of political opinion,lack of freedom in eastern bloc countries because the're under the thumb of the USSR.The devolopment of nuclear warheads capable of destroying the world hundreads of times oves.Almost causing a 3rd world war(and a nuclear one at that) against another evil state-the USA.

as you can imagine I could go on all day...


Your problem is that you don't know what socialism is. Find any definition of socialism , written by whoever ( left- winger or right- winger) and you will find out that USSR had all of the characteristic listed in the exact definition.

Your liberal talks can't negate the fact that USSR was socialist state.

" lack of liberty". SITUATION IN THE USSR.
Everyone could say whatever he wish, but it shouldn't have been had any anti-communistic essence. ANTI-COMMUNISM WAS DISALLOWED. CRITICISM AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POLICY QUESTIONS WERE ALLOWED.


Eastern bloc issue. The countries of the eastern bloc were socialist and were equal to the USSR. Soviet state didn't exploit them and didn't rob their resources like capitalist states do. The countries of the Eastern bloc and USSR had friendly relations, based on the mutual respect. The situation with the freedom in these countries were the same as in the USSR, not because USSR ruled over these " poor" countries, but because these countries were SOCIALIST and INDEPENDENT. Moreover the social- economical situation in the Eastern bloc countries was better than in USSR, as these countries didn't spent that much money on the military industry , as the USSR did. Here, I have moved to the military theme.

Nuclear third world war problem.

Well, here you should consider the international situation and also the fact that USSR didn't support agressive war policy. It was US state , which always started the WARS. Thanks to the military development USSR helped to all other socialist states and noncapitalist states, such as Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Northern Korea etc.

Pastradamus, I know what I talk about, and you don't. You are the victim of the bourgeoisie propaganda and I am sorry for you.

How can't you understand the simple deduction , which is ANTI - SOVIETISM = ANTI- COMMUNISM.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 5:17 pm on Oct. 1, 2002
Stalin was given too much leeway by Lenin and Trotsky.
This pro-Stalin account establishes that.


I am sorry , peacenicked, but your reply seemed to be a little bit off the topic.
What do you think about USSR? I think that at least you should consider it socialist state.