Trotskyism or Leninism - By Joseph Stalin

[Cassius Clay]

http://marx2mao.org/Stalin/TL24.html

[Turnoviseous]

Give Trotsky a change to speak for himself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...37/1937-sta.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-sta.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...6-rev/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...ition/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1927/opposition/index.htm)

[Pere Jordi]

i dont agree when you, "cassius clay" (a slave name, as said his user: MOhammed Alí) use the term "OR" when you talk about trostkyism and marxism.

I think trostkyism is the natural consequencie of marxism. when the ex USSR is degenerated by stalin, the only who take the struggle against this "mal-formation" was Mr Lev, and he was killed for this...

revolutions can not be based in persons, can not be based in burocracy and corruption, revolution must be based in people, who choose his destiny with participative "asamblea" (i dont know how to say in english, sorry)...

as you can see, is an big error when you say: trostkyism OR Leninism.

bye!

[Marxman]

Trotskyism was the word that suddenly came out of Stalinists. Of course, it was a basic defense mechanism of the ruling class. Happens all the time, same old story.

[Cassius Clay]

''i dont agree when you, "cassius clay" (a slave name, as said his user: MOhammed Alí) use the term "OR" when you talk about trostkyism and marxism.''

Oh but you know as well as I do that Cassius Clay was the better fighter (see Clevland Williams) and anyway using the name Mohammad Ali I perhaps may of given the impression of being a Muslim. *Which I am NOT so please don't take any offense at me using the slave name.

Anyway I did not say 'or' that is the title of the peice of writing.

''I think trostkyism is the natural consequencie of marxism.''

That's your opinion and I respect that however I'm of the opinion that 'Trotskyism' is just another word for Imperialism. *

''when the ex USSR is degenerated by stalin, the only who take the struggle against this "mal-formation" was Mr Lev, and he was killed for this...''

Yes Trotsky oppossed Stalin and what he (Trotsky) saw as the 'Degnerated' USSR but guess what. *Less than one per cent of the party agreed with him.

''revolutions can not be based in persons, can not be based in burocracy and corruption, revolution must be based in people, who choose his destiny with participative "asamblea" (i dont know how to say in english, sorry)...''

Agreed.

''as you can see, is an big error when you say: trostkyism OR Leninism.''

See my above response for this. *

'bye!'

Leaving us so soon. *

[Marxman]

How can you (Cassius Clay) be a communist when you doubt every Marxist written word and prooves?

[Palmares]

Mr Clay, you judge Trotskyism incorrectly. I did not mean that your opinion is wrong, but your description is misleading. I do not mean to be rude, but what kind of communist are you? Specifically speaking that is. Also, perhaps you should have named yourself 'Cassius X', which is non-muslim (Malcolm X's muslim name was a very long one). As I see it (however wrong I may be), Trotskyism is simply a build on Leninism. I know it is more complicated than that, but an attack on Trotsky is also an attack on Lenin. Lastly, some of the criticisms I see upon this forum are vulgar. It is okay to pick out quoted 'mistakes' in ones information, but in moderation I beg you. There are some that take such an attack as personal.

Thank you

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
-Leon Trotsky

[redjordi]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 3:28 pm on Oct. 19, 2002

Yes Trotsky oppossed Stalin and what he (Trotsky) saw as the 'Degnerated' USSR but guess what. Less than one per cent of the party agreed with him.

Hi Cassius,

In fact that is not true. In order to consolidate his power, Stalin had to destroy the Bolshevik Party of Lenin, literally. In 1939 there were only three remaining members of the CC of the Party which had led the revolution in 1917: Stalin, Kollontai and Trotsky (he was later assassinated by Stalin). All the others had been killed by Stalin (with two or three exceptions). People like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Kirov, Bukharin, etc. who had led the party for many years (not without faults) had to be physically eliminated before the Stalinist bureaucracy could consolidate power.

This was at CC level. At lower levels many thousands, hundreds of thousands and even up to a million loyal communists were eliminated in the Stalinist Terror and particularly the great purges of 1937/38.

If Trotsky had no support in the party why did Stalin feel the need to eliminate physically all his supporters. If he represented only 1% of the party, could Stalin not have beaten him through the democratic methods of the party and the soviets?

Stalinism had nothing to do with Bolshevism. Lenin's last struggle was in fact against Stalin and the rising bureaucracy.

comradely,

redjordi

[Marxman]

Very good indeed, comrade Jordi.

I shall plant the somewhat different question: - If Stalin was a true Marxist/Communist, then why did he have to kill almost all the people who were involved in the October revolution? What was the real face of the GREAT PURGES?

(All true Marxist needn't answer that).

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from Cthenthar on 2:35 am on Oct. 22, 2002
Mr Clay, you judge Trotskyism incorrectly. I did not mean that your opinion is wrong, but your description is misleading. I do not mean to be rude, but what kind of communist are you? Specifically speaking that is. Also, perhaps you should have named yourself 'Cassius X', which is non-muslim (Malcolm X's muslim name was a very long one). As I see it (however wrong I may be), Trotskyism is simply a build on Leninism. I know it is more complicated than that, but an attack on Trotsky is also an attack on Lenin. Lastly, some of the criticisms I see upon this forum are vulgar. It is okay to pick out quoted 'mistakes' in ones information, but in moderation I beg you. There are some that take such an attack as personal.

Thank you

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
-Leon Trotsky


Not to be offensive but my name shouldn't really be taking up all these letters so I have decided to keep it as Cassius Clay (although Joe Louis would of beaten him) and that will be that.

So how have I misunderstood Trotskyism? I view it as 'Imperialism' under a different name and this is just the theory of 'Permanent Revolution'. Also Trotsky believed a alliance of the peasants and workers could not be made, he was proved wrong. He said that Socialism could not be acheived in Russia, he was wrong.

The man also called for 'Military discipline' in factories, he wanted to shoot workers who turned up late for god's sake. Surely you have all heard of his 'Labor Armies' scheme it resembles something from a Pol Pot speech.

So why do I view 'Permenent Revolution' as Imperialism? Simple if the whole point of Trotskyism by the sword then surely the state must be in a permanent state of war, which means it will be ruled by the military and that makes the State both Fascist and through it's goal of military conquest (dam if the countries are ready for a revolution we will just force them) Imperialist.

[Cassius Clay]

Make that Spread Revolution by the sword.

[Cassius Clay]

''Hi Cassius,''

Hi

''In fact that is not true. In order to consolidate his power, Stalin had to destroy the Bolshevik Party of Lenin, literally. In 1939 there were only three remaining members of the CC of the Party which had led the revolution in 1917: Stalin, Kollontai and Trotsky (he was later assassinated by Stalin).''

You will note that Kollontai criticised Stalin quite alot yet nothing happened to her. Anyway I don't agree with the assasnaition of Trotsky for the simple reason it turned a bitter old man who had practically no support into a matry.

''All the others had been killed by Stalin (with two or three exceptions). People like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Kirov, Bukharin, etc. who had led the party for many years (not without faults) had to be physically eliminated before the Stalinist bureaucracy could consolidate power.''

Kirov killed by Stalin? No Kirov was killed by a man called Nikolaev who had been recruited by Zioneve and Kamenev. The rest were executed after a perfectly fair trial in which they were found guilty by the Supreme Soviet Court (which decided the executions NOT Stalin).

''This was at CC level. At lower levels many thousands, hundreds of thousands and even up to a million loyal communists were eliminated in the Stalinist Terror and particularly the great purges of 1937/38.''

Well 799,445 people died in the Soviet Prison system (for all reasons) between the early 1930's until 1953 and you expect me to believe that 1 million party members were executed during this period.

''If Trotsky had no support in the party why did Stalin feel the need to eliminate physically all his supporters. If he represented only 1% of the party, could Stalin not have beaten him through the democratic methods of the party and the soviets?''

Stalin did beat Trotsky though democratic methods and through the soviets. That is a fact. And what do Trotsky and his supporters do in response organise acts of violence and call for the overthrow of the Soviet government.

And if he wished to eliminate all opposition then why are Maxim Gorky, Alexander Kollantai or the Christian Scientist not killed? Why is it the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guarrentees the right of freedom of speech.

''Stalinism had nothing to do with Bolshevism. Lenin's last struggle was in fact against Stalin and the rising bureaucracy.''

First of all there is no such thing as 'Stalinism'. Throughout Lenin's whole writtings you can find one quote, just one (calling Stalin rude) which is anti-Stalin. At the time Stalin had just had a row with Lenin's wife and naturally Lenin sided with his wife. Yet there are literally dozens if not hundreds of quotes by Lenin which are critical of Trotsky and others.

[Marxman]

Just because Stalinists tell you every blatant lie about Permanent revolution, doesn't mean you have to believe them.

Permanent revolution is NECESSARY, otherwise it's a Stalinist "socialism in 1 country" policy which doesn't word in praxis, as history showed us.

[Cassius Clay]

Marxman it was no 'Stalinist' that told me that but I came to that conclusion after reading about Trotsky's theorys.

You know that it is 'Imperialism' under a different name. Fact is a state that is in a permanent state of war (North Korea for example) will turn into a fascist state whether it want's to or not.

And how was Socialism not established in the USSR? Compare the standard of living for the average Soviet in 1917 to that of say 1937. Hell American economists in the 1950's were generally scarred that the standard of living for the Russian would equal if not surpase that of a American.

[redjordi]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 9:34 pm on Oct. 23, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Cthenthar on 2:35 am on Oct. 22, 2002

So why do I view 'Permenent Revolution' as Imperialism? Simple if the whole point of Trotskyism by the sword then surely the state must be in a permanent state of war, which means it will be ruled by the military and that makes the State both Fascist and through it's goal of military conquest (dam if the countries are ready for a revolution we will just force them) Imperialist.


MMMMMmmmm, Cassius, it is good practice to read what you are actually criticising. NOWHERE in his book on Permanent Revolution does Trotsky say that revolution will have to be impossed by military means on other countries. What he DOES say is that socialism can only be successful as an international revolution, capitalism is an international system and it must be overthrown worldwide. So he stood for internationalism (as Lenin also did). Why do you think Lenin and Trotsky set out to organise the Communist (Third) International? So that revolution could spread internationally, NOT by military invasion, but rather by revolution in different countries.

Have a look at this and afterwards talk and criticise:

What is the Theory of the Permanent Revolution?
http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/perman...revolution.html (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html)

What is the Permanent Revolution? Basic Postulates
http://www.trotsky.net/works/1931-tpv/pr10.htm
The concluding section of Trotsky's work, The Permanent Revolution, where he briefly outlines the essential elements of his theory.

Chapter Four, The Theory of the Permanent Revolution
http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/chapter04.html
From Lenin and Trotsky What they Really Stood For by Alan Woods and Ted Grant

The complete version of Permanent Revolution can also be found on-line:
http://www.trotsky.net/works/1931-tpv/index.htm

comradely,

redjordi

"Workers of all countries, UNITE"

[redjordi]

"Hi"

Hi again,

"Anyway I don't agree with the assasnaition of Trotsky for the simple reason it turned a bitter old man who had practically no support into a matry. "

You may or might not agree, but the case is that Stalin went to great efforts to eliminate Trotsky when he was already in exile. Ask yourself, why? If he had no support, why the need to kill him? Because he was the only one who had analysed the rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and organised the struggle against it.

I said: ''All the others had been killed by Stalin (with two or three exceptions). People like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Kirov, Bukharin, etc. who had led the party for many years (not without faults) had to be physically eliminated before the Stalinist bureaucracy could consolidate power.''

You replied: "Kirov killed by Stalin? No Kirov was killed by a man called Nikolaev who had been recruited by Zioneve and Kamenev."

Even Kruschov in his famous secret speech admited that Stalin was behind the killing of Kirov. There is now plenty of evidence for that. At that time Kirov had been promoting a policy of reconciliation with the Opposition and had actually won the vote in the Politburo. Stalin had to get rid of him and at the same time used his assassination to get rid of Zinoviev and Kamenev.

"The rest were executed after a perfectly fair trial in which they were found guilty by the Supreme Soviet Court (which decided the executions NOT Stalin). "

Now comrade, have you actually read the minutes of the purge trials? (http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html Anyone can see they are a complete farce. Actually Leon Sedov made a good job in trashing most of the factual proof presented at those trials. This can be found in his "Red Book" (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/write...s/red/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/index.htm)). Just to give you one example, one of the witnesses in the first trial, Goltsmam, testified he met Trotsky and Sedov in Copenhagen at the Hotel Bristol. But the Hotel Bristol had been demolished in 1917! There were many such examples.

"Stalin did beat Trotsky though democratic methods and through the soviets. That is a fact. And what do Trotsky and his supporters do in response organise acts of violence and call for the overthrow of the Soviet government."

Please comrade, can you give us one factual proof that Trotsky and his supporters organised acts of violence against the Soviet government. Trotsky called for a WORKERS POLITICAL REVOLUTION to overthrow the bureaucracy, and at the same time remained commited until his death to a policy of UNCONDITIONAL defence of the USSR (that was at the time when Stalin was signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler and also shooting the whole of the High Command of the Red Army!!)

"And if he wished to eliminate all opposition then why are Maxim Gorky, Alexander Kollantai or the Christian Scientist not killed? Why is it the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guarrentees the right of freedom of speech. "

Sorry comrade, Maxim Gorky died in 1936 in misterious circumstances, later on Yagoda (GPU chief) admited to have killed him! So he was eliminated, though by that time his opposition was certainly very mild. Kollontai withdrew all her oppositionist views and thus was allowed to live (but this was an exception). And finally, who the hell was Christian Scientist???? So you are trying to say that because Kollontai was not killed there was freedom of speech and opposition within the party under Stalin???? Thousands of communists at all levels were killed comrade!

During Lenin's time there was healthy debate on many issues within the party. During the discussion on Brest-Litovsk for instance, the Left Communists (Bukharin and others) even published a DAILY paper to defend their positions. No one was put on trial and no communists were shot for expressing oppositional views. What a difference with Stalin's regime!

"First of all there is no such thing as 'Stalinism'. Throughout Lenin's whole writtings you can find one quote, just one (calling Stalin rude) which is anti-Stalin. At the time Stalin had just had a row with Lenin's wife and naturally Lenin sided with his wife. Yet there are literally dozens if not hundreds of quotes by Lenin which are critical of Trotsky and others."

Comrade, this is what Lenin says of Stalin:

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a general secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a detail, or it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."

So he is recommending that Stalin be removed from his position as general secretary. Now, do you think Lenin said that just for personal reasons??? Why was Lenin's testament suppressed by Stalin?

comradely,


redjordi

[Cassius Clay]

''Hi again,''

Hello

''You may or might not agree, but the case is that Stalin went to great efforts to eliminate Trotsky when he was already in exile. Ask yourself, why? If he had no support, why the need to kill him? Because he was the only one who had analysed the rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and organised the struggle against it.''

Trotsky 'anaylsed the rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union' no Trotsky was the one who had created such a heirachy in the Red Army that foriegn oberservers remarked that there was no difference between Red Army and old Imperial Army. Trotsky was the one who took a former Tsar's palace to live in, Trotsky was the one who introduced 'Special Privaleges' for his goons who happened to usually haved formely worked for the Tsar.

''Even Kruschov in his famous secret speech admited that Stalin was behind the killing of Kirov. There is now plenty of evidence for that. At that time Kirov had been promoting a policy of reconciliation with the Opposition and had actually won the vote in the Politburo. Stalin had to get rid of him and at the same time used his assassination to get rid of Zinoviev and Kamenev.''

Sorry but this is rubbish.

Fact number one is that if what you say is true then Nikoleav would not of done it that day since Kirov had phoned in sick and turned up unexpectedly. Fact number two is that according to Stalin's daughter Kirov and Stalin were extremely close friends. Fact number three is that Kirov was sleeping with Nikolaev's wife, so theirs your motive. Fact number four is that Nikoaev was a oddball who wanted to go down in history as a 'Soviet History' and you can see from his diary's that he deeply opposed the war against the Kulaks and Kirov was a strong supporter of the war. Fact number five is that Zioneve and Kamenev shared the same view as above. Fact number six is that Nikolaev had had that gun for 20 years, it was NOT given to him by the NKVD. Fact number seven is that Nikolaev upon arrest admitted that he had been recruited by Zioneve/Kamenev. Fact number eight is that a KGB investigation in the late 1980's and early 1990's (at this deeply anti-Stalin) into the murder could find nothing which connected Stalin to the murder. Fact number nine is that Khruschev alledges no such thing. Fact number ten is that all accounts say that Stalin was deeply shocked at the murder and that he feared he could be next or that he might be blamed for the murder.

And if it was just a excuse to get rid of Zioneve and Kamenev then why does Stalin (he actually didn't the Soviet government did but I'm trying to speak like a anti-Stalinist who believes evil Stalin controlled everything) wait for two years to put them on trial? Surely if he was trying to get rid of them he would of had them shot by Christmas 1934.

''Now comrade, have you actually read the minutes of the purge trials? (http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html Anyone can see they are a complete farce. Actually Leon Sedov made a good job in trashing most of the factual proof presented at those trials. This can be found in his "Red Book" (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/write...s/red/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/index.htm)). Just to give you one example, one of the witnesses in the first trial, Goltsmam, testified he met Trotsky and Sedov in Copenhagen at the Hotel Bristol. But the Hotel Bristol had been demolished in 1917! There were many such examples.''

And I reccomend that you read 'Mission to Moscow' by the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time and who was actually present at the trial. This is just one non-biased source that proves the trials were completely fair.

''Please comrade, can you give us one factual proof that Trotsky and his supporters organised acts of violence against the Soviet government.''

So called 'Demonstrations' in Leningrad in late 1927 after Trotsky had lost a election. His 'supporters' (mostly students, hooligans and beuracrates) went around and tried to intimidate everyone. Only present of police prevented them from ransacking party buildings.

''Trotsky called for a WORKERS POLITICAL REVOLUTION to overthrow the bureaucracy,''

And nobody agreed with him. But I suppose the workers wouldn't when Trotsky want's to shoot them if they turn up late. You see Trotsky lost a perfectly fair election and after almost four years debate on party policy the party voted for Stalin and NOT Trotsky.

''and at the same time remained commited until his death to a policy of UNCONDITIONAL defence of the USSR (that was at the time when Stalin was signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler and also shooting the whole of the High Command of the Red Army!!)''

What, Trotsky was prepared to sacrafice the Ukraine to Hitler as long as he could fufill his obsessional (and that's what Trotsky was obsessed) need to get rid of what he saw as a evil Soviet government.

While Stalin would of never had to of signed that pact if it were not for British, French Imperialists and Polish Landlords. While Churchill admits in his book 'The gathering Storm' that a conspiracy existed among some (no just a few dozen were executed) Red Army officers. As does President Benes of Czechslovakia.

Anyway the trial/s were precided over by their own military officers NOT the NKVD.

''Sorry comrade, Maxim Gorky died in 1936 in misterious circumstances, later on Yagoda (GPU chief) admited to have killed him!''

Yagoda was part of the conspiracy and when Gorky refused to have anything to do with their plans it was when he died under 'mysterious' circumstances.

''So he was eliminated, though by that time his opposition was certainly very mild. Kollontai withdrew all her oppositionist views and thus was allowed to live (but this was an exception).''

She was sleeping with the King of Sweden for god's sake. If that doesn't constitute as a embarresment to Stalin and the Soviet government I don't know what does.

''And finally, who the hell was Christian Scientist????''

A scientist by the name of Pavlov (I forget his first name) who had won the nobel prize in 1904 and was a devout Christian he routinly criticised the government.

''So you are trying to say that because Kollontai was not killed there was freedom of speech and opposition within the party under Stalin???? Thousands of communists at all levels were killed comrade!''

That's precisly what I'm trying to say and there are other examples. And can I ask you what sought of power mad dictator writes a constitution (in 1936) which guarrentee's the right to freedom of speech. To your last point I direct you to my previous reply.

''Ding Lenin's time there was healthy debate on many issues within the party. During the discussion on Brest-Litovsk for instance, the Left Communists (Bukharin and others) even published a DAILY paper to defend their positions. No one was put on trial and no communists were shot for expressing oppositional views. What a difference with Stalin's regime!''

I see no difference.

''Comrade, this is what Lenin says of Stalin:''

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a general secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a detail, or it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."

Notice that he never suggests anyone who could actually replace Stalin. And he also warns about a possible split, so what. But again the whole peice is criticising Stalin for being 'Rude', this was written at a time when Stalin had had a row with Lenin's wife and you should not under estimate the effect of a wife on the husband.

''So heis recommending that Stalin be removed from his position as general secretary.''

Yes but it was written at a time when Lenin was not very pleased with Stalin for personal reasons. But like I said there is just one quote against Stalin, there are dozens if not hundreds against Trotsky. And according to Lenin's sister apart from this one incident Stalin was the only one of the politburo members whom Lenin actually trusted.


''Now, do you think Lenin said that just for personal reasons???''

Yes.

''Why was Lenin's testament suppressed by Stalin?''

What are you talking about? Zioneve read out the will (although just the bit about Stalin) in 1926 and Stalin published the whole god dam thing whilst writing a Pravda article in 1928, he even joked that he was proud to be 'Rude'.

[Marxman]

Why don't you try to redirect your energy into reading Marxist material? It shall open your eyes as it did mine. Reading and believing in Stalinist words will only put you at the dead-end, like it did to me.

[Cassius Clay]

Marxman my eyes are fine but thankyou for your concern. Did you used to be a supporter of Stalin then? Ironic then that I used to support Trotsky.

Oh well all I can say is that I reccomend you open your eyes again.

[Wenty]

but surely the whole Trotsky idea that stalin opposed of spreading the revolution around the world is what marx would have agreed with, considering he said that eventually they will be many revolutions around the world. As it was, socialism stayed in the USSR until it died and subsequently across most of the world. At least Trotsky tried...

(Edited by Comrade Wenty at 9:08 pm on Oct. 26, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

In 1924 Socialism was restricted to the USSR, by 1953 it spread from Seoul to Berlin. And this was without the Red Army launching any war of agression.

And who said Stalin opposed any other revolutions? Stalin just believed that it was NOT in the Red Army's place to go forcing revolutions upon people who were not ready for a revolution.

Ofcourse it would be great if the workers of Germany and England had in 1919 staged a revolution, but it didn't happen. You see it is up to the people of those nations to have a revolution, they should NOT have it imposed with a gun behind their back.

Trotskyism believes that if you carry out a revolution in one country then you must spread it to other countries, no matter that the circumstances in the country that did have a revolution may not be in the country you are planning to 'Liberate'. Or that the workers of that country are not ready for a revolution and perhaps your own people are to tired for war.

So where do you draw the line when it comes to shooting people, because you will meet enourmous resistance to your plan of 'Liberation'. From the enemy, from your own people and from those you wish to free. Example being the Polish workers and peasants who rallied round the Flag in 1920, because one's natural instict is to defend their homes and families.

You see it cannot work. Through the militisation of the state (this is what Trotsky wanted) you will end up Imperialist and Fascist.

[James]

i think this is a prime example, of how an issue can have two opposite answers. Both as good as the other, both neither right nor wrong.

meh, just kiss and make up.

[Marxman]

Cassius Clay, Trotsky didn't certainly expect for people like you to turn his words upside down 180 degrees. Trotsky didn't mean TO FORCE the revolutions, are you insane? "The fire of the revolution would spread" is a metaphore, okay! It means that the workers realise what the revolutionary workers in a particular country accomplished by the socialist revolution and that means a chain reaction in revolution because workers in the other countries immediately want to draw their forces to establish the workers' democracy as in the revoluionary other workers' states. That's the point!

By the way, if you believe that Stalin was establishing his regime to save the proletariat from exploitation and to establish a workers' (healthy) democracy, then open your eyes! And if you believe that Russia had socialism, then you have absolutely no idea about Marxism.

[Cassius Clay]

''Cassius Clay, Trotsky didn't certainly expect for people like you to turn his words upside down 180 degrees. Trotsky didn't mean TO FORCE the revolutions, are you insane?''

No I'm NOT insane. And how I have turned his words upside down all I have to do to discredit the man is point out his 'Labor Armies' scheme with it's 'Military discipline in factories'. And if he didn't mean to 'FORCE' a revolution then how precisly did he wan't to go about it? Because invading a nation usually turns the vast majority of the people against you.

"The fire of the revolution would spread" is a metaphore, okay! It means that the workers realise what the revolutionary workers in a particular country accomplished by the socialist revolution and that means a chain reaction in revolution because workers in the other countries immediately want to draw their forces to establish the workers' democracy as in the revoluionary other workers' states. That's the point!''

Yes that's fine and agree with that but what you must understand is that it is up to the workers and peasants of those respective nations to carry out their own revolution. Not to have it imposed on them by force of arms, which is what Trotsky wanted.

Take Afghanistan between 1978 and 1992. At first when the leftist government was elected to power it was extremely popular and the Islamist rebels were in fact a small minority who enjoyed little support. But because they were getting CIA funds (it had begun way before Soviet Invasion) they were a threat.

However in late 1979 for a series of complex reasons the Soviets invaded and almost immediantly the Afghan workers and peasants were drawn to the rebels. This is despite the fact that in the early stages the Red Army bought with it everything from school books to hospitals and actually behaved honourably.

Yet by 1985 the Red Army are commiting atrocities and now treating the Afghan people (who in turn support the rebels more) with indifference at best. By 1988 the Islamic Rebels are actually approaching Kabul.

But then something extroadinary happens. The Soviets withdraw and suddenly the Afghan Communists recieve a huge boost in support by the workers and peasants. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of thousands of Afghan Women with AK-47's enrolling in the government army.

Consquently the government forces quickly smash the Islamists at the gates of Kabul and actually enjoy another four years in power and outlive the Communists in the Kremlin.

''By the way, if you believe that Stalin was establishing his regime to save the proletariat from exploitation and to establish a workers' (healthy) democracy, then open your eyes! And if you believe that Russia had socialism, then you have absolutely no idea about Marxism.''

I am not going to repeat myself so I suggest you stop repeating yourself.

[Palmares]

Who is one to trust in the matter? This blame game is immense, and somewhat intolerable. Perhaps this topic needs to be renamed? Excuse if I am incorrect, but I thought North Korea was 'Stalinist'? The USSR was never socialist, not even close. Trotskyism imperialist? If you are going to say such stupidity (not that you are stupid, just the comparison), then, Stalinism could be accurately called 'Demonic'. That term is perhaps too religious, maybe 'Bourgeois Fascist' is more appropriate? Just because someone's supports act violently does not mean that who they support agrees with this. How can you trust anything out of Pravda anyway? I am sorry if I have offended anybody, in any way.

"The Stalinist bureaucratic counter-revolution was like a pirate attack on the high seas; the ship of Revolution was boarded and hijacked, and the entire crew put to the sword. Stalin, the self-appointed great helmsman, together with his crew of usurpers struck out on an entirely new course, towards a sea of retreats, betrayals and the abandonment of Marxism, which later led inevitably to shipwreck."
-Vsievolod Volkov

[Marxman]

Like I said Cassius Clay, you are misinterpreting Trotsky and perhaps also the whole Marxism in the process.

[Cassius Clay]

So how am I 'misinterpeting' Bronstein's ideas? It should be obvious to anyone who study's his theory's that he would of made Pol Pot proud.

And Cthentar North Korea (through no fault of it's own) has been forced to be in a permanent state of war (this is what Trotsky wanted the state to be) for 50 years. And guess what? They have just embraced capatalism.

No I didn't call the USSR 'Trotskyite Imperialist' I just showed you a perfect example (Afghanistan 1978-1992) of what happens when you put what Trotsky wanted into practice.

[Revolution Hero]

Trotsky wanted Red Army to go with the war, spreading the "fire of the revolution" to the Western Europe. This perfectly proves his insane position of the "export of the revolution", which contradicts to the Marxism- Leninism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You can't be Trotskyist or Marxist, you can be Marxist and Trotskyist or just Marxist. All Trotskyists are Marxixts, Trotsky said that he was a Marxist, nothing else.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That last post of mine was meant to go into another thread, sorry.
Trotsky was a revolutionary hero!! His idea for Socialism to spread into western Europe was based on Marxist ideals. Later Trostky fought agaisnt the oppression of Stalin.

[jpcupp]

FOR STARTERS STALIN WAS A BOLSHEVIK AND AN ADMIRER OF LENIN FOR 15 YEARS EASY BEFORE TROTSKY JOINED THRUE OUT LENINI'S LIFE TIME HE WAS OPPOSED BY LENIN. I CAN COUNT YOU NUMBERS OF TIMES WERE THIS IS DOCUMENTED. TROTSKY WAS CENTRIST MENSHAVIKS, THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
THAT ALLIED THEMSELVES WITH IMPERIALISTS, NOT UNTIL 1914 DID TROTSKY JOIN FORCES WITH THE BOLSHEVIKS. TROTSKY ALWAYS OPPOSED THE IDEA OF AN ALLIANCE OF THE PEASANTRY AND THE PROLETARIATE. ON THIS LENIN AND HE ARGUED, SEVERLY. ON THE ISSUE OF PERMANANT OR PROLONGED REVOLUTION LENIN SPELLED OUT QUITE CLEARLY HIS POSTION AND THE BEST EXAMPLES OF THIS ARE IN HIS THEORIES THAT WERE CONTINUED AND IMPROVED UPON BY STALIN INVOLVING NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS. HAD THE ANARCHISTS AND TROTSKYISTS TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR WITH ARMS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. STALIN WAS A WONDERFUL MAN WHO IS DEEPLY NEED NOW! BUSH WOULD BE PISSING HIS PANTS!

[ThunderStrike]

thats quite sums it up jpcupp

[Mazdak]

Jpcupp, although i agree with you, one thing i hate more than anything is whiney posts completely done in caps.

It just looks bad, like some little kid typed it. However, welcome, as we need more Stalin sympathizers here. The number of them seems to be growing.

[new democracy]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:46 pm on Nov. 23, 2002
as we need more Stalin sympathizers here. The number of them seems to be growing.
http://politics.host.sk/discussion/html/emoticons/mad.gif. about the topic, i must say that trotskyism or leninism is one of the most funniest works i ever seen. stalin just dedicated an entire work for blatant propaganda against trotsky.

[Man of the Cause]

Couple of facts here, people. First of all, Trotsky lost the elections because Stalin, as the head of the party had replaced most of the Trotskyist sympathizers with he's own people.
Then, what Trotsky meant in the International Revolution theory, was that Socialism should not be experimented if the majority of nations in the world are capitalist, because the capitalist countries will slowly sufficate socialism. In that, he stayed loyal to the Internationalist side of Marxism, unlike the perverted "Socialism in one country" Experiment.

The reason why there were so many quotes of Lenin critisicing Trotsky and so few opposing Stalin (By the way Cassius, there is a quote of Lenin where he calls Stalin a "Russian Chauvinist" after he's unnesesery brutalness in handling the Georgian Communist Partie's situation) is that Lenin and Trotsky were rivals before 1917, because Trotsky was in the other side of the Socialdemocrat Party, a menshevik. I guess most of the criticisim on Trotsky was before he joined Bolsheviks. Trotsky by the way once called Lenin "Robespierre of Russia".
Lastly, Clay, did you read those links some kind soul put in this thread about the theory of the Continuing Revolution? Because it simply said, that the theory is a DEFENCE of the Russian Revolution, which infact was agains the simple logic of Marxism, Of course the theory was published 13 years BEFORE the revolution, but I think the theory justifies the revolution. And of course Lenin supported the Theory of the Continuing Revolution. I don't have the time nor pacience to explain it to You.
Thank You Comrades for reading, Please Respond and Sorry for the bad english, I am a Finn.