For the moderators, a suggestion - trotsky v stalin

[bolshevik1917]

I was just telling comrade cassius an idea i had for a stalin trotsky showdown.

We need an area for all the trotskyists to gather evidence, both defending trotsky and attacking stalin. also vice versa for stalin.

we should be given a few days each, and a (generous) limit to how much we can present which is debatable.

we will then present our opponents with our case, although it would be highly unlikely to move hardened trotskyists or stalinists from their possitions it may influence many comrades who are still 'sitting on the fence' between the two ideologies.

i hope you will consider my suggestion

[Michael De Panama]

I don't know about that. A lot of us anti-Stalinists aren't Trotskyites, myself included. I don't think we're having trouble keeping the debates within other forums, either. I think we should keep things as they are. But that's just me.

[Man of the Cause]

Bolshevik1917, there are other forms of socialism around then trotskyism and stalinism. Frankly, I'm proud of "sitting on the fence"

[Man of the Cause]

Otherwise, a good idea.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 5:55 am on Nov. 26, 2002
I was just telling comrade cassius an idea i had for a stalin trotsky showdown.

We need an area for all the trotskyists to gather evidence, both defending trotsky and attacking stalin. also vice versa for stalin.

we should be given a few days each, and a (generous) limit to how much we can present which is debatable.

we will then present our opponents with our case, although it would be highly unlikely to move hardened trotskyists or stalinists from their possitions it may influence many comrades who are still 'sitting on the fence' between the two ideologies.

i hope you will consider my suggestion


You make me laugh, “Bolshevik”, as you call yourself “Bolshevik” and support Menshevik ( Trotsky). It is a paradox! Well, I remember that these kind of paradoxes happened before, this kind of hypocrisy never been successful.

Quote: “We need an area for all the trotskyists to gather evidence, both defending trotsky and attacking stalin. also vice versa for stalin.”

Is it damn joke?
Just like many leftists, besides trotskyists, are against Stalinism, there are many leftists, besides Stalinists, who are against Trotskyism.
I am Marxist – Leninist, and I find Trotsky’s teaching opportunistic. Trotskyism goes against Marxist-Leninist theory, by breaking the fundamentals of Marxism. If you are true Trotskyist, then you should know that Trotsky had never respected peasantry, as a class. He had insane idea, of exploiting peasants for the benefits of the working class and of the state as a whole.
My point is, that Trotskyism is different from Marxism-Leninism; otherwise it wouldn’t be called Trotskyism (totally different theory). I can debate with any trotskyist (including those, who call themselves “Bolsheviks”), standing on the firm positions of Bolshevik’s theory, which is Marxism- Leninism.
So, my suggestion is, that if we start something like that, we should call it Marxism- Leninism VS. Trotskyism, as Stalinism is not a theory, and it can’t be used in the theoretical discussions.

[Man of the Cause]

Oh Christ.

Another Stalin sympathizer.

First of all your suggestion that Trotsky was not a "good" bolshevik is outrageous! Okay, Trotsky was a menshevik until 1917, but without him the Bolshevik power would have been crushed in a couple of months, and we would not have to make this endless arguing about Stalin. The guy organized Red Army, which was just a bunch of mobsters before him, thus saving the Red rule.

Your second claim was even more outrageous then the first one. Trotskyism is an important "part" of Leninism, for example the Theory of the Continuing Revolution was developed in 1905 and Lenin took it as a part of his theory 10 years later.
The world Revolution is a very Marxist theory, rather than Stalin's perverted "Socialism in one Country".

He may not respect the peasentry as much as the proletariat, but he had never suggested that the peasentry should be exploited(Stalin of course did this in practice). He even said, that the agraarian parts of society could/should be allies of the Proletariat.
Maybe the thread should be called "Marxist-Leninism vs. Stalinism?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Man of the Cause on 12:47 am on Dec. 6, 2002
Oh Christ.

Another Stalin sympathizer.

First of all your suggestion that Trotsky was not a "good" bolshevik is outrageous! Okay, Trotsky was a menshevik until 1917, but without him the Bolshevik power would have been crushed in a couple of months, and we would not have to make this endless arguing about Stalin. The guy organized Red Army, which was just a bunch of mobsters before him, thus saving the Red rule.

Your second claim was even more outrageous then the first one. Trotskyism is an important "part" of Leninism, for example the Theory of the Continuing Revolution was developed in 1905 and Lenin took it as a part of his theory 10 years later.
The world Revolution is a very Marxist theory, rather than Stalin's perverted "Socialism in one Country".

He may not respect the peasentry as much as the proletariat, but he had never suggested that the peasentry should be exploited(Stalin of course did this in practice). He even said, that the agraarian parts of society could/should be allies of the Proletariat.
Maybe the thread should be called "Marxist-Leninism vs. Stalinism?


It is so typical. I don’t need to wait until trotskyist would say something “rational”, I know forward what trotskyist would say.

Quote:” Okay, Trotsky was a menshevik until 1917, but without him the Bolshevik power would have been crushed in a couple of months….. The guy organized Red Army, which was just a bunch of mobsters before him, thus saving the Red rule”

Agree with you here. Trotsky was good in leading the Red Army to the victory. But do you know what his mistake was? Damn man, thought he was Alexander the Great and wanted to capture Poland….do I need to continue? The Red Army lost many soldiers there, as the population of Poland didn’t support it and wasn’t ready to fight for socialism. That was his mistake, he didn’t consider the internal social- political situation Poland was in.
But to say the truth, I respect Trotsky only for the time he spent commanding the Red Army.
The fact that he was at the head of the revolutionary army, doesn’t mean that he became a true Bolshevik. He proved that he deserved to be called Menshevik and renegade after Lenin’s death, when he launched an attack on Lenin and the Party of Bolsheviks.

Quote:” Trotskyism is an important "part" of Leninism, for example the Theory of the Continuing Revolution was developed in 1905 and Lenin took it as a part of his theory 10 years later”

I see that you don’t know Marxist – Leninist theory and the history of it’s development.
The theory of the Permanent Revolution had been developed by Marx. Lenin knew it perfectly before Trotsky “developed” it. Trotsky perverted Marx’s theory and proved that he was fucking opportunistic bastard. Lenin criticized Trotsky’s “permanent revolution”, and called it petty-bourgeois menshevist theory. I will post some quotes to prove my words later. ( need to find them first).

Quote: “He may not respect the peasentry as much as the proletariat, but he had never suggested that the peasentry should be exploited”

Are you sure?
Trotsky wanted to exploit peasantry by setting the high tax rates for the peasants. That was his plan of industrialization, Bronshtein wanted to develop the heavy industry by exploiting the agricultural sector. Of course, Bolsheviks didn’t agree with him.

Quote:” He even said, that the agraarian parts of society could/should be allies of the Proletariat.”

Believe me, he was a hypocrite.


Quote:” The world Revolution is a very Marxist theory”

True, but Trotsky’s interpretation doesn’t have a right on existence.

Quote:” Stalin's perverted "Socialism in one Country".”

Bullshit. Have you read any of Stalin’s works? If you are so smart, go and find the quote from Stalin , which will prove your words about “the socialism in one country.” Stalin never perverted Lenin’s theory in his works, I have read some of his works, all of them 100% conform to Marxism – Leninism.
Look at your history books. Wasn’t that Stalin, who created the Eastern bloc? Oh, yes that was him.
Was Eastern bloc socialist? YES, it was.
So, don’t tell me fairy tails about Stalin’s “socialism in one country”.

[Man of the Cause]

First of all, I want to point out that I am NOT a trotskyite, I only respect him as a man who defended the Red Revolution from first the Counter-Revolutionary forces, then from Stalin. And I do think that Soviet Union would been more Socialist under Trotsky then under Stalin. (Under Lenin, I think It would have been the most Socialist)

First, the Poland situation was fully confermed by the Communist party. And then It was Stalin who messed up in there. How? Well let me tell you: The Red army was in the gates of Warsaw in 1918 or 1919. The strategy was to attack it from two directions; the first army was controlled by Trotsky and the second army was lead by Stalin. In the crucial hour, when the fighting was the fiercest, when the Second army should have done the strike, Stalin was adventuring with his Army, doing some qrazy attacks in the wrong targets!

I'll wait to answer to the rest of your acquisations, when you give me some more proof.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote:” First of all, I want to point out that I am NOT a trotskyite, I only respect him as a man who defended the Red Revolution from first the Counter-Revolutionary forces”

Do you know that Trotsky became a counter- revolutionist after he was expelled from the Communist Party? The man was a renegade, just look at his fucking “career “:
1.Leo Bronshtein worked together with Lenin in “Iskra”. He was a true Marxist back then.
2.“Judas” Trotsky (this is how Lenin called him) became menshevik and joined the opposition to Bolsheviks.
3.Hypocrite Trotsky came to Bolsheviks, asking: “Can I join your revolution? “ He understood that it would be his only chance to get to the power.
4.After Lenin’s death Trotsky felt his moment. He started attacking Lenin’s teaching, slandering the history of the Great October Revolution. He claimed to be the leading figure of the Revolution, forgetting about the enormous merit of the Communist Party and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
5.Trotsky wanted to declare the freedom of factions inside the Communist Party, therefore to split it. He wanted to make his fucking opposition in order to replace party’s ideology with Trotskyism.
6.Damn bastard was expelled from the Party, by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the Bolsheviks.
7.Trotsky launched his anti – socialist attacks on the Soviet Union. He created , so called “ 4th International”, as the opposition to CommIntern. We should keep in mind , that CommIntern, was presented by the true Marxist – Leninist Parties.

Quote: “And I do think that Soviet Union would been more Socialist under Trotsky then under Stalin.”

Just interested, would you have said this if Stalin’s repressions had not took place? See, the main mistakes of Joseph Stalin were repressions. Soviet state was socialist during Stalin anyway. No private property on the means of production= SOCIALISM.

Quote: “the Poland situation was fully confermed by the Communist party.”

Not really. Lenin and many others were against this affair.

Quote:”
The Red army was in the gates of Warsaw in 1918 or 1919. The strategy was to attack it from two directions; the first army was controlled by Trotsky and the second army was lead by Stalin. In the crucial hour, when the fighting was the fiercest, when the Second army should have done the strike, Stalin was adventuring with his Army, doing some qrazy attacks in the wrong targets!”

Sounds like a good fairy tail. This is little insane story, which can’t be called HISTORY.


Please, wait for the proof, which I promised, I have to find it in Lenin’s volumes.

[bolshevik1917]

This is exactly the kind of shite that makes me determined to have the chance to put together a complete defence of Trotsky and attack of Stalin that will be viewed by you all.

Im sick of these pathetic bastards talking complete bullshit!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 1:52 am on Dec. 8, 2002
This is exactly the kind of shite that makes me determined to have the chance to put together a complete defence of Trotsky and attack of Stalin that will be viewed by you all.

Im sick of these pathetic bastards talking complete bullshit!

Quote:” This is exactly the kind of shite that makes me determined to have the chance to put together a complete defence of Trotsky and attack of Stalin that will be viewed by you all.”

Ha! Ha! Ha!
Calm down, boy. Don’t make emotions rule your mind. I will tell you right on that I will not debate with you over Stalin’s policy, I will simply ignore your silly attacks. But I challenge you on debate: Marxism – Leninism Vs. Trotskyism. I will use only Marxist- Leninist theory, exposing the lies of Trotsky and trotskyists.

Quote: “Im sick of these pathetic bastards talking complete bullshit!”

Be a man and address it directly to me, fucking coward!

[Revolution Hero]

“Bolshevik” will you dare to go against Vladimir Ilyich?
Lenin wrote this in 1911:
“ Therefore it is clear , that Trotsky and his followers “trotskyists and conciliators”are more harmful than any liquidator, for convinced liquidators directly state their views , and the workers can easily examine the mistakes of the latter, but sirs Trotskies deceive workers, cover evil, makes it impossible to expose and to cure it. Anyone, who supports Trotsky’s little group, supports the policy of LIE and DECEPTION of the workers, the policy of COVERING LIQUIDATIONISM.” (vol. 20, p. 320)

Lenin on Trotsky’s theory of the “permanent revolution”:
“ Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)

In 1920-21 Bolsheviks disagreed with Trotsky on the trade union issue.
Lenin characterized Trotsky’s views of that time:
“ 1. oblivion of Marxism, which was expressed in theoretically incorrect, eclectic definition of the relation of politics to economy;
2. the protection and covering of the political mistake, which was expressed in the policy of “shaking up”…And this mistake, if it is not realized and corrected, will lead to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat;
3. step back in the sphere of pure industrial and economic questions to the abstract, “empty”, theoretically incorrect, to the intellectually formulated common thesis , with the oblivion of business and practical parts.” (vol. 32, p. 63- 64)

[bolshevik1917]

Firstly, if you knew your history you would see that Trotsky did not join the bolsheviks for ‘their revolution’ as when he joined such an event seemed further away than ever. It was Trotsky’s joining the party that enabled him to assist Lenin in the carrying through of revolution, something the stalinists will always ignore.

“Lenin wrote this in 1911:
“ Therefore it is clear , that Trotsky and his followers “trotskyists and conciliators”are more harmful than any liquidator, for convinced liquidators directly state their views , and the workers can easily examine the mistakes of the latter, but sirs Trotskies deceive workers, cover evil, makes it impossible to expose and to cure it. Anyone, who supports Trotsky’s little group, supports the policy of LIE and DECEPTION of the workers, the policy of COVERING LIQUIDATIONISM.” (vol. 20, p. 320)”

What part of Lenin’s testament do you not understand? Lenin wrote many years after 1911 that “Trotsky’s non-bolshevik past should not be used against him” and that he was “the most able man”. As far as Lenin and Trotsky were concerned, all previous desputes were ‘the snows of yesterday’ with Trotsky holding his hands up to many previous tactical debates and admiting he was wrong at the time. The only one’s interested in keeping them alive are the pathetic vile stalinist scum.

“Lenin on Trotsky’s theory of the “permanent revolution”:
“ Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Here I am again, the ignorant stalinist simply refuses to look at the hard evidence on Trotsky’s theory – which was basicly the same tactics that Lenin had constantly put forward!

Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counterrevolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass," he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!)" (Works, vol. 9, page 98)
What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution?

"There remains 'the people', that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling."
Whom are these words directed against? Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution?

Let us see what Trotsky was writing at the same time as Lenin:

"This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political importance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role." (Results and Prospects, page 198)

Again:

"Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois Thiers surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers." (ibid, page 193)

On the question of the attitude to the bourgeois parties the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky were in complete solidarity as against the Mensheviks who hid behind the bourgeois nature of the revolution as a cloak for the subordination of the workers' party to the bourgeoisie. Arguing against class collaboration, both Lenin and Trotsky explained that only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

What was Lenin's attitude towards the peasantry in the revolution? He argued that the peasantry should be mobilised by the workers in order to carry through the democratic, anti-feudal tasks. The moment the workers begin to press forward to socialism, the class antagonisms begin to assert themselves, the reactionary Bonapartist tendencies among the peasantry, which Lenin repeatedly warned against, would be turned against the proletariat. In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consisted of peasants the struggle for socialism would encounter the most serious and determined opposition from the wealthier strata of the peasantry.

What were the differences between Lenin's ideas and those of Trotsky's? As we have seen, both agreed on the fundamental questions of the revolution: the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie; the need for the workers and peasants to carry through the democratic revolution; the international significance of the revolution, and so on. The differences arose from Lenin's characterisation of the revolutionary-democratic government which would carry through the tasks of the revolution as the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

Trotsky criticised this formulation for its vagueness; that it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship. Lenin's vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the revolutionary dictatorship would take. He did not even preclude the possibility that the peasant elements would predominate in the coalition. Thus, from the outset, the formula "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" bore an intentionally algebraic character - with a number of unknown quantities to be filled in by history. In Two Tactics, Lenin explained that:

"The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end, and the period of democratic revolution will have passed in Russia, it will then be ridiculous even to speak of 'singleness of will' of the proletariat and peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall deal with the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, and speak of it in greater detail." (Works, vol. 9, page 86)

To this idea of Lenin, Trotsky replied that at no time in history had the peasantry ever been able to play an independent role. The fate of the Russian revolution would be decided by the outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the peasant masses. The peasantry could either be used as an instrument of revolution or of reaction. At all events, the only possible outcome of the revolution was either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which would fall into the arms of Tsarist reaction, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasantry.

A revolutionary government, in which the workers predominated under the banner of Marxism, could not stop half way, confining itself to bourgeois tasks, but would necessarily pass from the tasks of the democratic revolution to the socialist. In order to survive, the revolutionary dictatorship would have to wage war against reaction within the country and externally. Thereafter, Trotsky agreed with Lenin, the victory of the Russian revolution would provide a tremendous impetus to the socialist revolution in the West, which would come to the aid of the Russian workers' state and carry through the socialist transformation.

This, then, was the heinous crime of Trotsky and his theory of the permanent revolution in 1905! This it was, according to the stalinists, that put him "outside the party"…to predict in advance what actually happened in 1917: to explain that the logic of events would inevitably place the working class in power! Not even Lenin was prepared to commit himself on this question in 1905, as we have seen.

Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West:

"It is possible (wrote Trotsky in 1905) for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country…In our view, the Russian revolution will create conditions in which power can pass into the hands of the workers…and in the event of the victory of the revolution it must do so…before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism get the chance to display to the full their talents for governing." (Results and Prospects, page 195)

Does this mean, as stalinists assert, that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution? Trotsky himself explains:

"In the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, the direct objective tasks of which are also bourgeois, there emerges as a near prospect the inevitable, or at least the probable, political domination of the proletariat. The proletariat itself will see to it that this domination does not become a mere passing 'episode', as some realist philistines hope. But we can even now ask ourselves: is it inevitable that the proletarian dictatorship should be shattered against the barriers of the bourgeois revolution? Or is it possible in the given world-historical conditions, that it may discover before it the prospect of breaking through these barriers? Here we are confronted by questions of tactics: should we consciously work towards a working-class government in proportion as the development of the revolution brings this stage nearer, or must we at that moment regard political power as a misfortune which the bourgeois revolution is ready to thrust upon the workers, and which it would be better to avoid?" (Results and Prospects, pages 199-200)

Are these lines of Trotsky really directed against Lenin? Or are they aimed at the "realist philistines", like Plekhanov, who feared the consequences of the independent movement of the workers? And where, here, is the "leap" from Tsarism to the socialist revolution, which, stalinists assures us, constitutes the crux of the theory of permanent revolution?

[bolshevik1917]

"I will not debate with you over Stalin’s policy, I will simply ignore your silly attacks. But I challenge you on debate: Marxism – Leninism Vs. Trotskyism. I will use only Marxist- Leninist theory, exposing the lies of Trotsky and trotskyists."

So muddled and insecure in his stalinist ideology this pathetic specimen will not even try to defend his hero. I also must point out that you cannot debate marxism-leninism against 'trotskyism' as they are the same thing.

I propose Marxism or Stalinism, two completely different things!

[Man of the Cause]

First of all, I think it's very stupid and ironic that a thread to start a Stalinist vs. Trotskyite debate, has became a Trotsky vs. Stalin debate!

Quote: 1.Leo Bronshtein worked together with Lenin in “Iskra”. He was a true Marxist back then.
2.“Judas” Trotsky (this is how Lenin called him) became menshevik and joined the opposition to Bolsheviks.
3.Hypocrite Trotsky came to Bolsheviks, asking: “Can I join your revolution? “ He understood that it would be his only chance to get to the power.
4.After Lenin’s death Trotsky felt his moment. He started attacking Lenin’s teaching, slandering the history of the Great October Revolution. He claimed to be the leading figure of the Revolution, forgetting about the enormous merit of the Communist Party and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
5.Trotsky wanted to declare the freedom of factions inside the Communist Party, therefore to split it. He wanted to make his fucking opposition in order to replace party’s ideology with Trotskyism.
6.Damn bastard was expelled from the Party, by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the Bolsheviks.
7.Trotsky launched his anti – socialist attacks on the Soviet Union. He created , so called “ 4th International”, as the opposition to CommIntern. We should keep in mind , that CommIntern, was presented by the true Marxist – Leninist Parties.

1. I agree
2. First, we should look at the differences between bolsheviks & Mensheviks; The Bolsheviks wanted a strict and a loyal party which mostly was made of "professional" Revolutionaries.
The Mensheviks wanted a large party, which was more open for the common folk and were debate was more open.
But we must also point out that these were factions of the Socialdemocratic party of Russia. And what if he joined the Mensheviks? Did it make him a betrayer of socialism? No. The point is he was a bolshevik in the future. I used to be a christian moralist.
Does that mean that now I'm not as Socialist as some other guy in this forum? No. Mistakes are natural. it's called humanity. ( Oh god, I'm starting to sound like my mom)
3. When Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks the revolution had not yet begun. And he didn't join them for lust of power; he joined because he was frustrated of the mensheviks cooperating with Prime minister Kerenski's goverment.
4. Okay, if you find a reliable quote where Trotsky says in public that he was the true leader of the October Revolution and where he claims that he did more than Lenin I will believe that. Besides, that sounds more like Stalin's propaganda.
5. I think that "declaring freedom of Factions" is known to as "democracy" I see here a great and a bold attempt to limit the centralism and anti-democracy in the Party.
6. We should remember, that Stalin as General Secretary had the power to appoint and expell every minor member of the Party. During 1924-1928, the vast majority of Trotsky sympathisers were replaced with Stalin's men, thus resulting the expelling of Trotsky.
7. Comintern was simply the tool, which Stalin used to control the foreign parties, not like in Lenin's days. The IV Internationale was the counterpart of Comintern for socialist parties that did not support Stalin. And for the Anti-Socialist attacks of Trotsky. Yes, Trotsky was the leader of a Sionite conspiracy party witch had Grigori Zinovjev and Karl Radek as it's members and which planned to return capitalism to Soviet Union after being in prison and exile for socialism. Thank Stalin, that our great father murdered those bastards. Sheesh.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 4:25 pm on Dec. 8, 2002
Firstly, if you knew your history you would see that Trotsky did not join the bolsheviks for ‘their revolution’ as when he joined such an event seemed further away than ever. It was Trotsky’s joining the party that enabled him to assist Lenin in the carrying through of revolution, something the stalinists will always ignore.

“Lenin wrote this in 1911:
“ Therefore it is clear , that Trotsky and his followers “trotskyists and conciliators”are more harmful than any liquidator, for convinced liquidators directly state their views , and the workers can easily examine the mistakes of the latter, but sirs Trotskies deceive workers, cover evil, makes it impossible to expose and to cure it. Anyone, who supports Trotsky’s little group, supports the policy of LIE and DECEPTION of the workers, the policy of COVERING LIQUIDATIONISM.” (vol. 20, p. 320)”

What part of Lenin’s testament do you not understand? Lenin wrote many years after 1911 that “Trotsky’s non-bolshevik past should not be used against him” and that he was “the most able man”. As far as Lenin and Trotsky were concerned, all previous desputes were ‘the snows of yesterday’ with Trotsky holding his hands up to many previous tactical debates and admiting he was wrong at the time. The only one’s interested in keeping them alive are the pathetic vile stalinist scum.

“Lenin on Trotsky’s theory of the “permanent revolution”:
“ Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Here I am again, the ignorant stalinist simply refuses to look at the hard evidence on Trotsky’s theory – which was basicly the same tactics that Lenin had constantly put forward!

Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counterrevolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass," he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!)" (Works, vol. 9, page 98)
What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution?

"There remains 'the people', that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling."
Whom are these words directed against? Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution?

Let us see what Trotsky was writing at the same time as Lenin:

"This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political importance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role." (Results and Prospects, page 198)

Again:

"Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois Thiers surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers." (ibid, page 193)

On the question of the attitude to the bourgeois parties the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky were in complete solidarity as against the Mensheviks who hid behind the bourgeois nature of the revolution as a cloak for the subordination of the workers' party to the bourgeoisie. Arguing against class collaboration, both Lenin and Trotsky explained that only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

What was Lenin's attitude towards the peasantry in the revolution? He argued that the peasantry should be mobilised by the workers in order to carry through the democratic, anti-feudal tasks. The moment the workers begin to press forward to socialism, the class antagonisms begin to assert themselves, the reactionary Bonapartist tendencies among the peasantry, which Lenin repeatedly warned against, would be turned against the proletariat. In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consisted of peasants the struggle for socialism would encounter the most serious and determined opposition from the wealthier strata of the peasantry.

What were the differences between Lenin's ideas and those of Trotsky's? As we have seen, both agreed on the fundamental questions of the revolution: the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie; the need for the workers and peasants to carry through the democratic revolution; the international significance of the revolution, and so on. The differences arose from Lenin's characterisation of the revolutionary-democratic government which would carry through the tasks of the revolution as the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

Trotsky criticised this formulation for its vagueness; that it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship. Lenin's vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the revolutionary dictatorship would take. He did not even preclude the possibility that the peasant elements would predominate in the coalition. Thus, from the outset, the formula "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" bore an intentionally algebraic character - with a number of unknown quantities to be filled in by history. In Two Tactics, Lenin explained that:

"The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end, and the period of democratic revolution will have passed in Russia, it will then be ridiculous even to speak of 'singleness of will' of the proletariat and peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall deal with the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, and speak of it in greater detail." (Works, vol. 9, page 86)

To this idea of Lenin, Trotsky replied that at no time in history had the peasantry ever been able to play an independent role. The fate of the Russian revolution would be decided by the outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the peasant masses. The peasantry could either be used as an instrument of revolution or of reaction. At all events, the only possible outcome of the revolution was either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which would fall into the arms of Tsarist reaction, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasantry.

A revolutionary government, in which the workers predominated under the banner of Marxism, could not stop half way, confining itself to bourgeois tasks, but would necessarily pass from the tasks of the democratic revolution to the socialist. In order to survive, the revolutionary dictatorship would have to wage war against reaction within the country and externally. Thereafter, Trotsky agreed with Lenin, the victory of the Russian revolution would provide a tremendous impetus to the socialist revolution in the West, which would come to the aid of the Russian workers' state and carry through the socialist transformation.

This, then, was the heinous crime of Trotsky and his theory of the permanent revolution in 1905! This it was, according to the stalinists, that put him "outside the party"…to predict in advance what actually happened in 1917: to explain that the logic of events would inevitably place the working class in power! Not even Lenin was prepared to commit himself on this question in 1905, as we have seen.

Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West:

"It is possible (wrote Trotsky in 1905) for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country…In our view, the Russian revolution will create conditions in which power can pass into the hands of the workers…and in the event of the victory of the revolution it must do so…before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism get the chance to display to the full their talents for governing." (Results and Prospects, page 195)

Does this mean, as stalinists assert, that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution? Trotsky himself explains:

"In the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, the direct objective tasks of which are also bourgeois, there emerges as a near prospect the inevitable, or at least the probable, political domination of the proletariat. The proletariat itself will see to it that this domination does not become a mere passing 'episode', as some realist philistines hope. But we can even now ask ourselves: is it inevitable that the proletarian dictatorship should be shattered against the barriers of the bourgeois revolution? Or is it possible in the given world-historical conditions, that it may discover before it the prospect of breaking through these barriers? Here we are confronted by questions of tactics: should we consciously work towards a working-class government in proportion as the development of the revolution brings this stage nearer, or must we at that moment regard political power as a misfortune which the bourgeois revolution is ready to thrust upon the workers, and which it would be better to avoid?" (Results and Prospects, pages 199-200)

Are these lines of Trotsky really directed against Lenin? Or are they aimed at the "realist philistines", like Plekhanov, who feared the consequences of the independent movement of the workers? And where, here, is the "leap" from Tsarism to the socialist revolution, which, stalinists assures us, constitutes the crux of the theory of permanent revolution?




Quote:” Firstly, if you knew your history you would see that Trotsky did not join the bolsheviks for ‘their revolution’ as when he joined such an event seemed further away than ever.”

It is clear that you don’t know history at all.
Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.


Quote:” . It was Trotsky’s joining the party that enabled him to assist Lenin in the carrying through of revolution, something the stalinists will always ignore. “

LOL

Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death. After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.

Quote:” What part of Lenin’s testament do you not understand? Lenin wrote many years after 1911 that “Trotsky’s non-bolshevik past should not be used against him” and that he was “the most able man”.”

Quote from Lenin’s testament:
“In contrary, comrade Trotsky, as it has proved his struggle against Central Committee over NKPS issue, distinguish himself not only by the notable abilities. He is probably the most able man in the present CC, but he is very self-confident and excessively keen on a pure administrative side of a business”

In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky.
When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.
Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.


Quote:” Here I am again, the ignorant stalinist simply refuses to look at the hard evidence on Trotsky’s theory – which was basicly the same tactics that Lenin had constantly put forward! “

Firstly, I am not Stalinist.
Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)

Quote:” Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counterrevolution.”

Of course bourgeois class can’t be workers’ ally, but the latter actually were the allies of the bourgeois class during the revolution of 1905 and February revolution of 1917. But petty-bourgeois can be an ally of the proletariat and peasantry in the socialistic revolution:
Lenin said:” Trotskyism says “without Tsar, but the state belongs to the workers”. This position is wrong. Petty-bourgeois exists, it can’t be thrown away. But it consists of two parts. It’s poorest part goes together with the working class.” (from the speech, Petrograd conference record, april, 1917)

Quote:” "There remains 'the people', that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling."
Whom are these words directed against? Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution? “

Not really. You just used the neutral (to the relation to Trotsky and Trotskyism) quote and asked two quite reasonable questions at the end. Lenin talked about revolution, but not about Trotsky.

Quote:” Let us see what Trotsky was writing at the same time as Lenin”

I saw, that you had posted some “intellectually formulated” Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases. Good for you! Now listen to Vladimir Ilyich!
Lenin about Trotsky of 1905:
“ Theory, which finds the struggle of bolshevism against menshevism for the influence on the immature proletariat is not new. We can find it since 1905 (if not since 1903) in the numerous books, brochures and articles of the liberal press. Martov and Trotsky brought Marxist painted liberal views to german comrades.”(vol.19, p.358)

Lenin about Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases:
“There are lot of luster and raise in the phrases of Trotsky, but they don’t have any matter.”(vol. 17, p.383)


Quote: “Arguing against class collaboration, both Lenin and Trotsky explained that only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.”

I have wrote the quote about Lenin’s attitude to the petty – bourgeois class, as to the supporter of the working masses in the socialistic revolution, haven’t I?
Quote:” What were the differences between Lenin's ideas and those of Trotsky's? As we have seen, both agreed on the fundamental questions of the revolution: the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie; the need for the workers and peasants to carry through the democratic revolution; the international significance of the revolution, and so on”

You still keep silence about the main difference between Marxism- Leninism and Trotskyism, which is the difference between Marx’s theory of the continuous revolution and Trotsky’s permanent revolution.

Quote:” Trotsky criticised this formulation for its vagueness; that it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship. Lenin's vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the revolutionary dictatorship would take. He did not even preclude the possibility that the peasant elements would predominate in the coalition. Thus, from the outset, the formula "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" bore an intentionally algebraic character - with a number of unknown quantities to be filled in by history.”

Haven’t you ever heard about the industrial and agricultural proletariat? When Lenin said THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, he meant THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE UNITED WORKERS AND PEASANTS, THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PAST OPPRESSED OVER THEIR PAST EXPLOITERS.

Quote:” Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West”

Do you say that Lenin didn’t predict the socialistic revolution?
Read the following, Lenin said in 1905:
“From the democratic revolution we will move, with the power of conscious and organized proletariat, we will move towards socialistic revolution. We stand for the continuous revolution. We will not stop on a half way.”( Lenin, vol.8, p.186)

Quote:” Does this mean… that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution?”

I have never said that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 4:25 pm on Dec. 8, 2002
Firstly, if you knew your history you would see that Trotsky did not join the bolsheviks for ‘their revolution’ as when he joined such an event seemed further away than ever. It was Trotsky’s joining the party that enabled him to assist Lenin in the carrying through of revolution, something the stalinists will always ignore.

“Lenin wrote this in 1911:
“ Therefore it is clear , that Trotsky and his followers “trotskyists and conciliators”are more harmful than any liquidator, for convinced liquidators directly state their views , and the workers can easily examine the mistakes of the latter, but sirs Trotskies deceive workers, cover evil, makes it impossible to expose and to cure it. Anyone, who supports Trotsky’s little group, supports the policy of LIE and DECEPTION of the workers, the policy of COVERING LIQUIDATIONISM.” (vol. 20, p. 320)”

What part of Lenin’s testament do you not understand? Lenin wrote many years after 1911 that “Trotsky’s non-bolshevik past should not be used against him” and that he was “the most able man”. As far as Lenin and Trotsky were concerned, all previous desputes were ‘the snows of yesterday’ with Trotsky holding his hands up to many previous tactical debates and admiting he was wrong at the time. The only one’s interested in keeping them alive are the pathetic vile stalinist scum.

“Lenin on Trotsky’s theory of the “permanent revolution”:
“ Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Here I am again, the ignorant stalinist simply refuses to look at the hard evidence on Trotsky’s theory – which was basicly the same tactics that Lenin had constantly put forward!

Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counterrevolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass," he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it 'recoils' from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!)" (Works, vol. 9, page 98)
What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution?

"There remains 'the people', that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling."
Whom are these words directed against? Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution?

Let us see what Trotsky was writing at the same time as Lenin:

"This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political importance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role." (Results and Prospects, page 198)

Again:

"Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois Thiers surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers." (ibid, page 193)

On the question of the attitude to the bourgeois parties the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky were in complete solidarity as against the Mensheviks who hid behind the bourgeois nature of the revolution as a cloak for the subordination of the workers' party to the bourgeoisie. Arguing against class collaboration, both Lenin and Trotsky explained that only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

What was Lenin's attitude towards the peasantry in the revolution? He argued that the peasantry should be mobilised by the workers in order to carry through the democratic, anti-feudal tasks. The moment the workers begin to press forward to socialism, the class antagonisms begin to assert themselves, the reactionary Bonapartist tendencies among the peasantry, which Lenin repeatedly warned against, would be turned against the proletariat. In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consisted of peasants the struggle for socialism would encounter the most serious and determined opposition from the wealthier strata of the peasantry.

What were the differences between Lenin's ideas and those of Trotsky's? As we have seen, both agreed on the fundamental questions of the revolution: the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie; the need for the workers and peasants to carry through the democratic revolution; the international significance of the revolution, and so on. The differences arose from Lenin's characterisation of the revolutionary-democratic government which would carry through the tasks of the revolution as the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

Trotsky criticised this formulation for its vagueness; that it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship. Lenin's vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the revolutionary dictatorship would take. He did not even preclude the possibility that the peasant elements would predominate in the coalition. Thus, from the outset, the formula "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" bore an intentionally algebraic character - with a number of unknown quantities to be filled in by history. In Two Tactics, Lenin explained that:

"The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end, and the period of democratic revolution will have passed in Russia, it will then be ridiculous even to speak of 'singleness of will' of the proletariat and peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall deal with the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, and speak of it in greater detail." (Works, vol. 9, page 86)

To this idea of Lenin, Trotsky replied that at no time in history had the peasantry ever been able to play an independent role. The fate of the Russian revolution would be decided by the outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the peasant masses. The peasantry could either be used as an instrument of revolution or of reaction. At all events, the only possible outcome of the revolution was either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which would fall into the arms of Tsarist reaction, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasantry.

A revolutionary government, in which the workers predominated under the banner of Marxism, could not stop half way, confining itself to bourgeois tasks, but would necessarily pass from the tasks of the democratic revolution to the socialist. In order to survive, the revolutionary dictatorship would have to wage war against reaction within the country and externally. Thereafter, Trotsky agreed with Lenin, the victory of the Russian revolution would provide a tremendous impetus to the socialist revolution in the West, which would come to the aid of the Russian workers' state and carry through the socialist transformation.

This, then, was the heinous crime of Trotsky and his theory of the permanent revolution in 1905! This it was, according to the stalinists, that put him "outside the party"…to predict in advance what actually happened in 1917: to explain that the logic of events would inevitably place the working class in power! Not even Lenin was prepared to commit himself on this question in 1905, as we have seen.

Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West:

"It is possible (wrote Trotsky in 1905) for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country…In our view, the Russian revolution will create conditions in which power can pass into the hands of the workers…and in the event of the victory of the revolution it must do so…before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism get the chance to display to the full their talents for governing." (Results and Prospects, page 195)

Does this mean, as stalinists assert, that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution? Trotsky himself explains:

"In the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, the direct objective tasks of which are also bourgeois, there emerges as a near prospect the inevitable, or at least the probable, political domination of the proletariat. The proletariat itself will see to it that this domination does not become a mere passing 'episode', as some realist philistines hope. But we can even now ask ourselves: is it inevitable that the proletarian dictatorship should be shattered against the barriers of the bourgeois revolution? Or is it possible in the given world-historical conditions, that it may discover before it the prospect of breaking through these barriers? Here we are confronted by questions of tactics: should we consciously work towards a working-class government in proportion as the development of the revolution brings this stage nearer, or must we at that moment regard political power as a misfortune which the bourgeois revolution is ready to thrust upon the workers, and which it would be better to avoid?" (Results and Prospects, pages 199-200)

Are these lines of Trotsky really directed against Lenin? Or are they aimed at the "realist philistines", like Plekhanov, who feared the consequences of the independent movement of the workers? And where, here, is the "leap" from Tsarism to the socialist revolution, which, stalinists assures us, constitutes the crux of the theory of permanent revolution?




Quote:” Firstly, if you knew your history you would see that Trotsky did not join the bolsheviks for ‘their revolution’ as when he joined such an event seemed further away than ever.”

It is clear that you don’t know history at all.
Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.


Quote:” . It was Trotsky’s joining the party that enabled him to assist Lenin in the carrying through of revolution, something the stalinists will always ignore. “

LOL

Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death. After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.

Quote:” What part of Lenin’s testament do you not understand? Lenin wrote many years after 1911 that “Trotsky’s non-bolshevik past should not be used against him” and that he was “the most able man”.”

Quote from Lenin’s testament:
“In contrary, comrade Trotsky, as it has proved his struggle against Central Committee over NKPS issue, distinguish himself not only by the notable abilities. He is probably the most able man in the present CC, but he is very self-confident and excessively keen on a pure administrative side of a business”

In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky.
When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.
Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.


Quote:” Here I am again, the ignorant stalinist simply refuses to look at the hard evidence on Trotsky’s theory – which was basicly the same tactics that Lenin had constantly put forward! “

Firstly, I am not Stalinist.
Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)

Quote:” Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counterrevolution.”

Of course bourgeois class can’t be workers’ ally, but the latter actually were the allies of the bourgeois class during the revolution of 1905 and February revolution of 1917. But petty-bourgeois can be an ally of the proletariat and peasantry in the socialistic revolution:
Lenin said:” Trotskyism says “without Tsar, but the state belongs to the workers”. This position is wrong. Petty-bourgeois exists, it can’t be thrown away. But it consists of two parts. It’s poorest part goes together with the working class.” (from the speech, Petrograd conference record, april, 1917)

Quote:” "There remains 'the people', that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling."
Whom are these words directed against? Trotsky and the Permanent Revolution? “

Not really. You just used the neutral (to the relation to Trotsky and Trotskyism) quote and asked two quite reasonable questions at the end. Lenin talked about revolution, but not about Trotsky.

Quote:” Let us see what Trotsky was writing at the same time as Lenin”

I saw, that you had posted some “intellectually formulated” Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases. Good for you! Now listen to Vladimir Ilyich!
Lenin about Trotsky of 1905:
“ Theory, which finds the struggle of bolshevism against menshevism for the influence on the immature proletariat is not new. We can find it since 1905 (if not since 1903) in the numerous books, brochures and articles of the liberal press. Martov and Trotsky brought Marxist painted liberal views to german comrades.”(vol.19, p.358)

Lenin about Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases:
“There are lot of luster and raise in the phrases of Trotsky, but they don’t have any matter.”(vol. 17, p.383)


Quote: “Arguing against class collaboration, both Lenin and Trotsky explained that only the working class, in alliance with the peasant masses, could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.”

I have wrote the quote about Lenin’s attitude to the petty – bourgeois class, as to the supporter of the working masses in the socialistic revolution, haven’t I?
Quote:” What were the differences between Lenin's ideas and those of Trotsky's? As we have seen, both agreed on the fundamental questions of the revolution: the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie; the need for the workers and peasants to carry through the democratic revolution; the international significance of the revolution, and so on”

You still keep silence about the main difference between Marxism- Leninism and Trotskyism, which is the difference between Marx’s theory of the continuous revolution and Trotsky’s permanent revolution.

Quote:” Trotsky criticised this formulation for its vagueness; that it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship. Lenin's vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the revolutionary dictatorship would take. He did not even preclude the possibility that the peasant elements would predominate in the coalition. Thus, from the outset, the formula "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" bore an intentionally algebraic character - with a number of unknown quantities to be filled in by history.”

Haven’t you ever heard about the industrial and agricultural proletariat? When Lenin said THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, he meant THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE UNITED WORKERS AND PEASANTS, THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PAST OPPRESSED OVER THEIR PAST EXPLOITERS.

Quote:” Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West”

Do you say that Lenin didn’t predict the socialistic revolution?
Read the following, Lenin said in 1905:
“From the democratic revolution we will move, with the power of conscious and organized proletariat, we will move towards socialistic revolution. We stand for the continuous revolution. We will not stop on a half way.”( Lenin, vol.8, p.186)

Quote:” Does this mean… that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution?”

I have never said that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the revolution.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 6:53 pm on Dec. 8, 2002
"I will not debate with you over Stalin’s policy, I will simply ignore your silly attacks. But I challenge you on debate: Marxism – Leninism Vs. Trotskyism. I will use only Marxist- Leninist theory, exposing the lies of Trotsky and trotskyists."

So muddled and insecure in his stalinist ideology this pathetic specimen will not even try to defend his hero. I also must point out that you cannot debate marxism-leninism against 'trotskyism' as they are the same thing.

I propose Marxism or Stalinism, two completely different things!



Quote:” So muddled and insecure in his stalinist ideology this pathetic specimen will not even try to defend his hero”

Repeat for the stupid, Stalinism is not my ideology.

Quote:”I also must point out that you cannot debate marxism-leninism against 'trotskyism' as they are the same thing. “

You are damn wrong!

p.s. sorry for the double post

[Revolution Hero]

According to the Marxist-Leninist theory, the continuous revolution is the ascending development of the revolutionary process from bourgeois-democratic movement against feudal institutes to the anti-capitalistic struggle and proletariat’s accession to power.
This contains the bases of the theory of the continuous revolution, which had been originally called “permanent”, and changed to “continuous” later, in order to distinguish from Trotsky’s theory.
It is apparent that Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution is completely different from Marx’s as Trotsky’s theory stands for the world revolution, negating the possibility of the socialistic building originally in one country. According to Trotskyism, proletariat can’t built socialism in one country until the socialistic revolution in the world- wide scale would come. In contrary, Marxism- Leninism says that it is possible to build socialism originally “in one separately taken country” and then the world revolution can be also reached.

Resolution of the 14th Conference of the Communist Party:
“One of the component part of the trotskyist theory of the permanent revolution is the statement that “the true raising of the socialistic economy in Russia can be possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important European states” ( Trotsky, 1922)-this statement dooms USSR’s proletariat on the fatal passivity at the present moment. Comrade Lenin wrote against such “theories”: ”This is extremely patterned statement, which they have learned by hard during the development of the west European social-democracy, the point of which is that we are not ready for socialism, that we don’t have objective economical preconditions for socialism.”

Trotskyism is the rival ideology to Marxism- Leninism and we , communists consider it our main obligation to defend our great theoretical legacy from the attacks of anti-communists.

[bolshevik1917]

“Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.”

Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!

"I have in mind the so-called August bloc of 1912. I participated actively in this bloc. In a sense I created it. Politically I differed with the Mensheviks on all fundamental questions. I also differed with the ultra-left Bolsheviks, the Vperyodists. In the general tendency of politics I stood far more closely with the Bolsheviks. But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable. And so I formed this episodic bloc consisting of heterogeneous elements which was directed against the proletarian wing of the party.
"In the August bloc the liquidators had their own faction, the Vperyodists also had something resembling a faction. Most of the documents were written by me and through avoiding principled differences had as their aim the creation of a semblance of unanimity upon 'concrete political questions'. Not a word about the past! Lenin subjected the August bloc to merciless criticism and the harshest blows fell to my lot. Lenin proved that inasmuch as I did not agree politically with either the Mensheviks or the Vperyodists my policy was adventurism. This was severe but it was true.
"As 'mitigating circumstances' let me mention the fact that I had set as my task not to support the right or the ultra-left factions against the Bolsheviks but to unite the party as a whole. The Bolsheviks too were invited to the August conference. But since Lenin flatly refused to unite with the Mensheviks (in which-he was completely correct) I was left in an unnatural bloc with the Mensheviks and the Vperyodists. The second mitigating circumstance is this, that the very phenomenon of Bolshevism as the genuine revolutionary party was then developing for the first time - in the practice of the Second International there were no precedents. But I do not thereby seek in the least to absolve myself from guilt. Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist. I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism. Immediately after the August conference the bloc began to disintegrate into its component parts. Within a few months I was not only in principle but organisationally outside the bloc." (In Defence of Marxism, page 141)

Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes. You have not interests in letting him speak for himself however, and prefer to use your distorted opinions and isolated quotes to slander him.

Trotsky then followed up later on.

"As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side. In order to outline, approximately in a few words, the nature and extent of those former disagreements of mine with Bolshevism, I will say this: During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism."




You make the claim that “Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death.”

Stalin said the same thing
"Comrade Trotsky played no particular role either in the party or the October insurrection, and could not do so being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period." (Stalin's Works, Moscow, 1953 edition)

However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!
The first being proof of Stalin’s bitter falsifications against Trotsky

“This, in turn, was only another step towards the complete degeneration of the Stalinist bureaucracy which accused not only Trotsky, but the entire "Old Bolshevik" leadership of collaborating with German fascism for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Among other charges made at the time of the infamous Purge Trials of the 30s, Bukharin, whom Lenin described in the suppressed testament as "the Party's favourite" was accused of plotting to assassinate Lenin in 1918!
The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union.”

And also a quote from Lunacharsky, who was very close to Lenin at the time. This shows, even in 1905 how well respected Trotsky was, despite his mistakes.

"I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)






“After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?



"In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky. “

Oh really??

“When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. “

Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?

“Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence!

“Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.”

Which was?

“Firstly, I am not Stalinist.”

And I am a martian

“Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again!

[bolshevik1917]

As for the rest of your 'argument' I propose two new threads.

"socialism in one country"

and

"the permanent revolution"

With this we can continue in more 'open' surroundings. I need to go now, you can start the threads when you like, or I will next time im online.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:57 am on Dec. 10, 2002
“Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.”

Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!

"I have in mind the so-called August bloc of 1912. I participated actively in this bloc. In a sense I created it. Politically I differed with the Mensheviks on all fundamental questions. I also differed with the ultra-left Bolsheviks, the Vperyodists. In the general tendency of politics I stood far more closely with the Bolsheviks. But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable. And so I formed this episodic bloc consisting of heterogeneous elements which was directed against the proletarian wing of the party.
"In the August bloc the liquidators had their own faction, the Vperyodists also had something resembling a faction. Most of the documents were written by me and through avoiding principled differences had as their aim the creation of a semblance of unanimity upon 'concrete political questions'. Not a word about the past! Lenin subjected the August bloc to merciless criticism and the harshest blows fell to my lot. Lenin proved that inasmuch as I did not agree politically with either the Mensheviks or the Vperyodists my policy was adventurism. This was severe but it was true.
"As 'mitigating circumstances' let me mention the fact that I had set as my task not to support the right or the ultra-left factions against the Bolsheviks but to unite the party as a whole. The Bolsheviks too were invited to the August conference. But since Lenin flatly refused to unite with the Mensheviks (in which-he was completely correct) I was left in an unnatural bloc with the Mensheviks and the Vperyodists. The second mitigating circumstance is this, that the very phenomenon of Bolshevism as the genuine revolutionary party was then developing for the first time - in the practice of the Second International there were no precedents. But I do not thereby seek in the least to absolve myself from guilt. Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist. I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism. Immediately after the August conference the bloc began to disintegrate into its component parts. Within a few months I was not only in principle but organisationally outside the bloc." (In Defence of Marxism, page 141)

Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes. You have not interests in letting him speak for himself however, and prefer to use your distorted opinions and isolated quotes to slander him.

Trotsky then followed up later on.

"As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side. In order to outline, approximately in a few words, the nature and extent of those former disagreements of mine with Bolshevism, I will say this: During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism."




You make the claim that “Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death.”

Stalin said the same thing
"Comrade Trotsky played no particular role either in the party or the October insurrection, and could not do so being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period." (Stalin's Works, Moscow, 1953 edition)

However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!
The first being proof of Stalin’s bitter falsifications against Trotsky

“This, in turn, was only another step towards the complete degeneration of the Stalinist bureaucracy which accused not only Trotsky, but the entire "Old Bolshevik" leadership of collaborating with German fascism for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Among other charges made at the time of the infamous Purge Trials of the 30s, Bukharin, whom Lenin described in the suppressed testament as "the Party's favourite" was accused of plotting to assassinate Lenin in 1918!
The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union.”

And also a quote from Lunacharsky, who was very close to Lenin at the time. This shows, even in 1905 how well respected Trotsky was, despite his mistakes.

"I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)






“After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?



"In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky. “

Oh really??

“When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. “

Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?

“Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence!

“Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.”

Which was?

“Firstly, I am not Stalinist.”

And I am a martian

“Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again!



Quote:” Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!”

You are damn slow, Mr. Anti-leninist. You call falsification everything, which go against Trotskyist ideology, everything you don’t agree with. This strategy would not work!

You mentioned a pretty good quote of “Judas” Trotsky. Let’s suppose that Bronshtein really understood his mistakes, he describes it himself and uneducated mind can easily believe to his hypocritical words. I just need to use one part from the quote you mentioned in order to prove that Trotsky stayed anti-leninist, when he became “Bolshevik”.
Trotsky said:” But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable.”

Trotsky never had learned it, he stayed anti-leninist during all his lifetime and his words about his recognition of this particular “past” mistake have NO MATTER.
If you, Mr. Trotskyist, find some free time and read the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then you will learn, besides many other interesting facts, about the struggle of the Communist Party against Trotskyist opposition, which happened at the end of the 1923, right before Lenin’s death.
Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks. Trotsky gathered all anti-leninist elements of the party and created the platform of the opposition, which was directed against the policy of the communist party. The platform was called the declaration of the 46 members of the opposition. It consisted of all of the anti-leninist elements: trotskyists, detsists, the remains of the “left communists” and the “workers’ opposition”. They stated about the crisis and the death of Soviet Union, which, as they thought, would come if their request wouldn’t be satisfied. They demanded the FREEDOM OF FACTIONS AND GROUPS, WHICH WAS PROHIBITTED BY THE 10TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ACCORDING TO THE SUGGESTION OF COMRADE LENIN.

The history shows that Trotsky never had understood his mistake, and his hypocritical words are NOTHING, but a LIE.

Then, Trotsky said:” Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist”

Did he recognize that his “theory” of the permanent revolution is the main mistake of his? Obviously, he didn’t. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” is the main contradiction to Marxist-Leninist theory and to the communistic ideology, as a whole.
Trotsky said:” I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism.”

And he never treated himself.

Quote:” Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes.”

If you had carefully read everything listed above, then you probably noticed that Trotsky repeated his MISTAKE; therefore he went against Lenin and the party of Bolsheviks one more time.

Trotsky said:” As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side.”

Can you tell me the year when he had said this? Error was always on his side, these errors lead to his expulsion from the party of Bolsheviks. But, did he say that after the expulsion? I want to know.

Trotsky’s blatant statement:” During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism”

What a HYPOCRITE was that Leo Bronshtein! It seems that he never read any of Stalin’s works. And if he did, then how could he dare to say this? Stalin was the leading defender of Leninism, he protected Lenin’s theory from the attacks of Trotsky and his followers and all true Bolsheviks supported comrade Stalin in his ideological struggle.

Quote:” However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!”

I don’t respect Grant, nor Woods. Who are they? Are they trotskyists? If they are, then they are NOBODY. Their subjective viewpoint is not interesting for me. I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.


Quote:“And also a quote from Lunacharsky:” I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)”

Nothing said about Trotsky’s mistake. This characteristic is very subjective.

Quote:” “After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?”

Mr. Anti-leninist, Mr. Trotsky himself can offer this evidence. Read his article “October lessons”.

Quote:” Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?”
I don’t know who translated Lenin’s works of the edition you read. The translations can be awful, particularly if the translator is trotskyist. Unlike you, I read Lenin in original, believe me Lenin said just “nonbolshevism”, NOT “non-bolshevik past” like you or whoever try to present it.

Quote:” “Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence! “

Actually the evidence is true, therefore the conclusion is the true one too.

Quote:” “Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again! “

OK. Lenin’s words are directed against Trotsky’s “permanent revolution. I have to ask again if Trotsky admitted the mistaken character of his “permanent” revolution. “Judas” Trotsky never admitted the main mistake of his half-menshevist past!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:57 am on Dec. 10, 2002
“Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.”

Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!

"I have in mind the so-called August bloc of 1912. I participated actively in this bloc. In a sense I created it. Politically I differed with the Mensheviks on all fundamental questions. I also differed with the ultra-left Bolsheviks, the Vperyodists. In the general tendency of politics I stood far more closely with the Bolsheviks. But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable. And so I formed this episodic bloc consisting of heterogeneous elements which was directed against the proletarian wing of the party.
"In the August bloc the liquidators had their own faction, the Vperyodists also had something resembling a faction. Most of the documents were written by me and through avoiding principled differences had as their aim the creation of a semblance of unanimity upon 'concrete political questions'. Not a word about the past! Lenin subjected the August bloc to merciless criticism and the harshest blows fell to my lot. Lenin proved that inasmuch as I did not agree politically with either the Mensheviks or the Vperyodists my policy was adventurism. This was severe but it was true.
"As 'mitigating circumstances' let me mention the fact that I had set as my task not to support the right or the ultra-left factions against the Bolsheviks but to unite the party as a whole. The Bolsheviks too were invited to the August conference. But since Lenin flatly refused to unite with the Mensheviks (in which-he was completely correct) I was left in an unnatural bloc with the Mensheviks and the Vperyodists. The second mitigating circumstance is this, that the very phenomenon of Bolshevism as the genuine revolutionary party was then developing for the first time - in the practice of the Second International there were no precedents. But I do not thereby seek in the least to absolve myself from guilt. Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist. I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism. Immediately after the August conference the bloc began to disintegrate into its component parts. Within a few months I was not only in principle but organisationally outside the bloc." (In Defence of Marxism, page 141)

Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes. You have not interests in letting him speak for himself however, and prefer to use your distorted opinions and isolated quotes to slander him.

Trotsky then followed up later on.

"As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side. In order to outline, approximately in a few words, the nature and extent of those former disagreements of mine with Bolshevism, I will say this: During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism."




You make the claim that “Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death.”

Stalin said the same thing
"Comrade Trotsky played no particular role either in the party or the October insurrection, and could not do so being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period." (Stalin's Works, Moscow, 1953 edition)

However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!
The first being proof of Stalin’s bitter falsifications against Trotsky

“This, in turn, was only another step towards the complete degeneration of the Stalinist bureaucracy which accused not only Trotsky, but the entire "Old Bolshevik" leadership of collaborating with German fascism for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Among other charges made at the time of the infamous Purge Trials of the 30s, Bukharin, whom Lenin described in the suppressed testament as "the Party's favourite" was accused of plotting to assassinate Lenin in 1918!
The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union.”

And also a quote from Lunacharsky, who was very close to Lenin at the time. This shows, even in 1905 how well respected Trotsky was, despite his mistakes.

"I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)






“After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?



"In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky. “

Oh really??

“When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. “

Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?

“Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence!

“Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.”

Which was?

“Firstly, I am not Stalinist.”

And I am a martian

“Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again!



Quote:” Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!”

You are damn slow, Mr. Anti-leninist. You call falsification everything, which go against Trotskyist ideology, everything you don’t agree with. This strategy would not work!

You mentioned a pretty good quote of “Judas” Trotsky. Let’s suppose that Bronshtein really understood his mistakes, he describes it himself and uneducated mind can easily believe to his hypocritical words. I just need to use one part from the quote you mentioned in order to prove that Trotsky stayed anti-leninist, when he became “Bolshevik”.
Trotsky said:” But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable.”

Trotsky never had learned it, he stayed anti-leninist during all his lifetime and his words about his recognition of this particular “past” mistake have NO MATTER.
If you, Mr. Trotskyist, find some free time and read the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then you will learn, besides many other interesting facts, about the struggle of the Communist Party against Trotskyist opposition, which happened at the end of the 1923, right before Lenin’s death.
Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks. Trotsky gathered all anti-leninist elements of the party and created the platform of the opposition, which was directed against the policy of the communist party. The platform was called the declaration of the 46 members of the opposition. It consisted of all of the anti-leninist elements: trotskyists, detsists, the remains of the “left communists” and the “workers’ opposition”. They stated about the crisis and the death of Soviet Union, which, as they thought, would come if their request wouldn’t be satisfied. They demanded the FREEDOM OF FACTIONS AND GROUPS, WHICH WAS PROHIBITTED BY THE 10TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ACCORDING TO THE SUGGESTION OF COMRADE LENIN.

The history shows that Trotsky never had understood his mistake, and his hypocritical words are NOTHING, but a LIE.

Then, Trotsky said:” Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist”

Did he recognize that his “theory” of the permanent revolution is the main mistake of his? Obviously, he didn’t. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” is the main contradiction to Marxist-Leninist theory and to the communistic ideology, as a whole.
Trotsky said:” I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism.”

And he never treated himself.

Quote:” Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes.”

If you had carefully read everything listed above, then you probably noticed that Trotsky repeated his MISTAKE; therefore he went against Lenin and the party of Bolsheviks one more time.

Trotsky said:” As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side.”

Can you tell me the year when he had said this? Error was always on his side, these errors lead to his expulsion from the party of Bolsheviks. But, did he say that after the expulsion? I want to know.

Trotsky’s blatant statement:” During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism”

What a HYPOCRITE was that Leo Bronshtein! It seems that he never read any of Stalin’s works. And if he did, then how could he dare to say this? Stalin was the leading defender of Leninism, he protected Lenin’s theory from the attacks of Trotsky and his followers and all true Bolsheviks supported comrade Stalin in his ideological struggle.

Quote:” However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!”

I don’t respect Grant, nor Woods. Who are they? Are they trotskyists? If they are, then they are NOBODY. Their subjective viewpoint is not interesting for me. I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.


Quote:“And also a quote from Lunacharsky:” I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)”

Nothing said about Trotsky’s mistake. This characteristic is very subjective.

Quote:” “After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?”

Mr. Anti-leninist, Mr. Trotsky himself can offer this evidence. Read his article “October lessons”.

Quote:” Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?”
I don’t know who translated Lenin’s works of the edition you read. The translations can be awful, particularly if the translator is trotskyist. Unlike you, I read Lenin in original, believe me Lenin said just “nonbolshevism”, NOT “non-bolshevik past” like you or whoever try to present it.

Quote:” “Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence! “

Actually the evidence is true, therefore the conclusion is the true one too.

Quote:” “Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again! “

OK. Lenin’s words are directed against Trotsky’s “permanent revolution. I have to ask again if Trotsky admitted the mistaken character of his “permanent” revolution. “Judas” Trotsky never admitted the main mistake of his half-menshevist past!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:57 am on Dec. 10, 2002
“Trotsky and his followers were accepted to the party by the 6th Congress of the Party of Bolsheviks, which took place from July, 26 till August,3 of 1917.
Trotsky and his followers declared that they completely agree with Bolsheviks and Congress thought that they were sincere and would become true communist. Congress satisfied their request. Indeed, some of them, for example Volodarsky and Uritsky eventually became Bolsheviks. In contrary, Trotsky and some of his close friends entered the party not for the work, but in order to explode and destroy it from the inside.”

Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!

"I have in mind the so-called August bloc of 1912. I participated actively in this bloc. In a sense I created it. Politically I differed with the Mensheviks on all fundamental questions. I also differed with the ultra-left Bolsheviks, the Vperyodists. In the general tendency of politics I stood far more closely with the Bolsheviks. But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable. And so I formed this episodic bloc consisting of heterogeneous elements which was directed against the proletarian wing of the party.
"In the August bloc the liquidators had their own faction, the Vperyodists also had something resembling a faction. Most of the documents were written by me and through avoiding principled differences had as their aim the creation of a semblance of unanimity upon 'concrete political questions'. Not a word about the past! Lenin subjected the August bloc to merciless criticism and the harshest blows fell to my lot. Lenin proved that inasmuch as I did not agree politically with either the Mensheviks or the Vperyodists my policy was adventurism. This was severe but it was true.
"As 'mitigating circumstances' let me mention the fact that I had set as my task not to support the right or the ultra-left factions against the Bolsheviks but to unite the party as a whole. The Bolsheviks too were invited to the August conference. But since Lenin flatly refused to unite with the Mensheviks (in which-he was completely correct) I was left in an unnatural bloc with the Mensheviks and the Vperyodists. The second mitigating circumstance is this, that the very phenomenon of Bolshevism as the genuine revolutionary party was then developing for the first time - in the practice of the Second International there were no precedents. But I do not thereby seek in the least to absolve myself from guilt. Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist. I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism. Immediately after the August conference the bloc began to disintegrate into its component parts. Within a few months I was not only in principle but organisationally outside the bloc." (In Defence of Marxism, page 141)

Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes. You have not interests in letting him speak for himself however, and prefer to use your distorted opinions and isolated quotes to slander him.

Trotsky then followed up later on.

"As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side. In order to outline, approximately in a few words, the nature and extent of those former disagreements of mine with Bolshevism, I will say this: During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism."




You make the claim that “Trotsky never really helped party during the period of the peaceful socialistic building. He was pretty quiet all the time until Lenin’s death.”

Stalin said the same thing
"Comrade Trotsky played no particular role either in the party or the October insurrection, and could not do so being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period." (Stalin's Works, Moscow, 1953 edition)

However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!
The first being proof of Stalin’s bitter falsifications against Trotsky

“This, in turn, was only another step towards the complete degeneration of the Stalinist bureaucracy which accused not only Trotsky, but the entire "Old Bolshevik" leadership of collaborating with German fascism for the overthrow of the Soviet Union. Among other charges made at the time of the infamous Purge Trials of the 30s, Bukharin, whom Lenin described in the suppressed testament as "the Party's favourite" was accused of plotting to assassinate Lenin in 1918!
The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union.”

And also a quote from Lunacharsky, who was very close to Lenin at the time. This shows, even in 1905 how well respected Trotsky was, despite his mistakes.

"I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)






“After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?



"In, so called “TESTAMENT”, Lenin warned about the danger of split inside the party, which can appear, as the result of the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky. That is why he advised the Congress to think of the ways of replacing both Stalin and Trotsky. “

Oh really??

“When Lenin talked about Trotsky’s “nonbolshevism” he didn’t specify if he meant Trotsky’s past mistakes. “

Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?

“Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence!

“Also, Lenin couldn’t even imagine what Trotsky would do later.”

Which was?

“Firstly, I am not Stalinist.”

And I am a martian

“Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again!



Quote:” Mr Stalinist, please allow comrade Trotsky to speak for himself on the matter. I know what you lot are like with your falsifications, we Marxists prefer democracy however!”

You are damn slow, Mr. Anti-leninist. You call falsification everything, which go against Trotskyist ideology, everything you don’t agree with. This strategy would not work!

You mentioned a pretty good quote of “Judas” Trotsky. Let’s suppose that Bronshtein really understood his mistakes, he describes it himself and uneducated mind can easily believe to his hypocritical words. I just need to use one part from the quote you mentioned in order to prove that Trotsky stayed anti-leninist, when he became “Bolshevik”.
Trotsky said:” But I was against the Leninist 'regime' because I had not yet learned to understand that in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable.”

Trotsky never had learned it, he stayed anti-leninist during all his lifetime and his words about his recognition of this particular “past” mistake have NO MATTER.
If you, Mr. Trotskyist, find some free time and read the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then you will learn, besides many other interesting facts, about the struggle of the Communist Party against Trotskyist opposition, which happened at the end of the 1923, right before Lenin’s death.
Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks. Trotsky gathered all anti-leninist elements of the party and created the platform of the opposition, which was directed against the policy of the communist party. The platform was called the declaration of the 46 members of the opposition. It consisted of all of the anti-leninist elements: trotskyists, detsists, the remains of the “left communists” and the “workers’ opposition”. They stated about the crisis and the death of Soviet Union, which, as they thought, would come if their request wouldn’t be satisfied. They demanded the FREEDOM OF FACTIONS AND GROUPS, WHICH WAS PROHIBITTED BY THE 10TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ACCORDING TO THE SUGGESTION OF COMRADE LENIN.

The history shows that Trotsky never had understood his mistake, and his hypocritical words are NOTHING, but a LIE.

Then, Trotsky said:” Notwithstanding the conception of permanent revolution which undoubtedly disclosed the correct perspective, I had not freed myself at that period especially in the organisational sphere from the traits of a petty-bourgeois revolutionist”

Did he recognize that his “theory” of the permanent revolution is the main mistake of his? Obviously, he didn’t. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” is the main contradiction to Marxist-Leninist theory and to the communistic ideology, as a whole.
Trotsky said:” I was sick with the disease of conciliationism towards Menshevism and with a distrustful attitude toward Leninist centralism.”

And he never treated himself.

Quote:” Thus, straightforwardly, honestly, Trotsky reveals, and explains his own mistakes.”

If you had carefully read everything listed above, then you probably noticed that Trotsky repeated his MISTAKE; therefore he went against Lenin and the party of Bolsheviks one more time.

Trotsky said:” As I have many times stated, in my disagreements with Bolshevism upon a series of fundamental questions, the error was on my side.”

Can you tell me the year when he had said this? Error was always on his side, these errors lead to his expulsion from the party of Bolsheviks. But, did he say that after the expulsion? I want to know.

Trotsky’s blatant statement:” During the time when I stood outside the Bolshevik party, during that period when my differences with Bolshevism reached their highest point, the distance separating me from the views of Lenin was never as great as the distance which separates the present position of Stalin-Bukharin from the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism”

What a HYPOCRITE was that Leo Bronshtein! It seems that he never read any of Stalin’s works. And if he did, then how could he dare to say this? Stalin was the leading defender of Leninism, he protected Lenin’s theory from the attacks of Trotsky and his followers and all true Bolsheviks supported comrade Stalin in his ideological struggle.

Quote:” However, if we refer to ‘Lenin and Trotsky’ by Grant and Woods, it offers some interesting points and facts!”

I don’t respect Grant, nor Woods. Who are they? Are they trotskyists? If they are, then they are NOBODY. Their subjective viewpoint is not interesting for me. I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.


Quote:“And also a quote from Lunacharsky:” I must say that of all the Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-6 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared. Less than any of them did he bear the stamp of a certain kind of emigre narrowness of outlook. Trotsky understood better than all the others what it meant to conduct the political struggle on a broad national scale. He emerged from the revolution having acquired an enormous degree of popularity, whereas neither Lenin nor Martov had effectively gained any at all. Plekhanov had lost a great deal, thanks to his display of quasi-Cadet [i.e. liberal] tendencies. Trotsky stood then in the very front rank." (Revolutionary Silhouettes, page 61)”

Nothing said about Trotsky’s mistake. This characteristic is very subjective.

Quote:” “After Lenin had died Trotsky launched an attack on Leninism. This deed of “Judas” Trotsky proved that he was HYPOCRITE.”

Could we perhaps have some evidence, Mr Stalinist?”

Mr. Anti-leninist, Mr. Trotsky himself can offer this evidence. Read his article “October lessons”.

Quote:” Did he not now, so the ‘past’ in the “non-bolshevik past” sentence means nothing? Or did Stalin have it removed?”
I don’t know who translated Lenin’s works of the edition you read. The translations can be awful, particularly if the translator is trotskyist. Unlike you, I read Lenin in original, believe me Lenin said just “nonbolshevism”, NOT “non-bolshevik past” like you or whoever try to present it.

Quote:” “Therefore, Lenin didn’t consider Trotsky a true Bolshevik.”

A false conclusion from false evidence! “

Actually the evidence is true, therefore the conclusion is the true one too.

Quote:” “Secondly, Trotsky’s theory was different to Lenin’s strategy.
I am repeating Lenin’s quote one more time, so you will hopefully get it:
“Trotsky’s theory takes the call for the resolute revolutionary struggle of the proletariat from the Bolsheviks and the negation of the role of the peasants from the Mensheviks.”( vol. 21, 381-82)”

Lenin and Trotsky said a lot of things pre-revolution. They forgave and forgot, only the stalinists keep trouting old the same old rubbish over and over again! “

OK. Lenin’s words are directed against Trotsky’s “permanent revolution. I have to ask again if Trotsky admitted the mistaken character of his “permanent” revolution. “Judas” Trotsky never admitted the main mistake of his half-menshevist past!

[bolshevik1917]

“You are damn slow, Mr. Anti-leninist. You call falsification everything, which go against Trotskyist ideology, everything you don’t agree with. This strategy would not work!”

How amusing, the stalinist accusing we bolsheviks of deflecting arguments, when every single piece of criticism directed at stalin is ‘western propoganda’ according to these pondlife!


“You mentioned a pretty good quote of “Judas” Trotsky. Let’s suppose that Bronshtein really understood his mistakes, he describes it himself and uneducated mind can easily believe to his hypocritical words. I just need to use one part from the quote you mentioned in order to prove that Trotsky stayed anti-leninist, when he became “Bolshevik”.”

Can you? I don’t see how, this quote merely shows Trotsky holding his hands up to a great mistake he made. Again you say too much about nothing.


“Trotsky never had learned it, he stayed anti-leninist during all his lifetime and his words about his recognition of this particular “past” mistake have NO MATTER.
If you, Mr. Trotskyist, find some free time and read the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then you will learn, besides many other interesting facts, about the struggle of the Communist Party against Trotskyist opposition, which happened at the end of the 1923, right before Lenin’s death. “

I am quite aware of the history of bolshevism thankyou very much, perhaps you should educate yourself also http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/


“Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks.”

Rubbish! What does it matter to you anyway? Stalin ended up killing them all!

“Trotsky gathered all anti-leninist elements of the party and created the platform of the opposition, which was directed against the policy of the communist party. The platform was called the declaration of the 46 members of the opposition. It consisted of all of the anti-leninist elements: trotskyists, detsists, the remains of the “left communists” and the “workers’ opposition”. They stated about the crisis and the death of Soviet Union, which, as they thought, would come if their request wouldn’t be satisfied. They demanded the FREEDOM OF FACTIONS AND GROUPS, WHICH WAS PROHIBITTED BY THE 10TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ACCORDING TO THE SUGGESTION OF COMRADE LENIN.”

Do you ever produce evidence? Or just keep spouting this inane garbage in the hope that someone might believe you?


“The history shows that Trotsky never had understood his mistake, and his hypocritical words are NOTHING, but a LIE.”

History shows nothing on this post, all I can see are your madman rantings!




“If you had carefully read everything listed above, then you probably noticed that Trotsky repeated his MISTAKE; therefore he went against Lenin and the party of Bolsheviks one more time.”

I have carefully read everything, you have provided your opinion but no proof of anything!


“Can you tell me the year when he had said this? Error was always on his side, these errors lead to his expulsion from the party of Bolsheviks. But, did he say that after the expulsion? I want to know.”

Around 1939 perhaps, a year before stalin had him murdered!


“What a HYPOCRITE was that Leo Bronshtein! It seems that he never read any of Stalin’s works. And if he did, then how could he dare to say this? Stalin was the leading defender of Leninism, he protected Lenin’s theory from the attacks of Trotsky and his followers and all true Bolsheviks supported comrade Stalin in his ideological struggle.”

This is pure comedy, I can provide HUNDREDS of quotes to show this as complete tripe, give me some time to do some digging and I’ll get back to you.

“I don’t respect Grant, nor Woods. Who are they? Are they trotskyists? If they are, then they are NOBODY. Their subjective viewpoint is not interesting for me.”

Ted Grant (www.tedgrant.org) and Alan Woods, true marxist revolutionaries who have constantly defeated stalinists in debate, before and after the collapse of the USSR.

“I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.”

Like Stalin? HAHA!


“Mr. Anti-leninist, Mr. Trotsky himself can offer this evidence. Read his article “October lessons”.”

I have, where is this evidence? Can I borrow a magnifying glass?

“OK. Lenin’s words are directed against Trotsky’s “permanent revolution. I have to ask again if Trotsky admitted the mistaken character of his “permanent” revolution. “Judas” Trotsky never admitted the main mistake of his half-menshevist past!”

“The mistake here, believe it or not, is with Lenin, Lenin admitted this later on and rethought his theory slightly, I’ll have a look for some quotes.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 4:11 am on Dec. 11, 2002
“You are damn slow, Mr. Anti-leninist. You call falsification everything, which go against Trotskyist ideology, everything you don’t agree with. This strategy would not work!”

How amusing, the stalinist accusing we bolsheviks of deflecting arguments, when every single piece of criticism directed at stalin is ‘western propoganda’ according to these pondlife!


“You mentioned a pretty good quote of “Judas” Trotsky. Let’s suppose that Bronshtein really understood his mistakes, he describes it himself and uneducated mind can easily believe to his hypocritical words. I just need to use one part from the quote you mentioned in order to prove that Trotsky stayed anti-leninist, when he became “Bolshevik”.”

Can you? I don’t see how, this quote merely shows Trotsky holding his hands up to a great mistake he made. Again you say too much about nothing.


“Trotsky never had learned it, he stayed anti-leninist during all his lifetime and his words about his recognition of this particular “past” mistake have NO MATTER.
If you, Mr. Trotskyist, find some free time and read the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then you will learn, besides many other interesting facts, about the struggle of the Communist Party against Trotskyist opposition, which happened at the end of the 1923, right before Lenin’s death. “

I am quite aware of the history of bolshevism thankyou very much, perhaps you should educate yourself also http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/


“Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks.”

Rubbish! What does it matter to you anyway? Stalin ended up killing them all!

“Trotsky gathered all anti-leninist elements of the party and created the platform of the opposition, which was directed against the policy of the communist party. The platform was called the declaration of the 46 members of the opposition. It consisted of all of the anti-leninist elements: trotskyists, detsists, the remains of the “left communists” and the “workers’ opposition”. They stated about the crisis and the death of Soviet Union, which, as they thought, would come if their request wouldn’t be satisfied. They demanded the FREEDOM OF FACTIONS AND GROUPS, WHICH WAS PROHIBITTED BY THE 10TH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ACCORDING TO THE SUGGESTION OF COMRADE LENIN.”

Do you ever produce evidence? Or just keep spouting this inane garbage in the hope that someone might believe you?


“The history shows that Trotsky never had understood his mistake, and his hypocritical words are NOTHING, but a LIE.”

History shows nothing on this post, all I can see are your madman rantings!




“If you had carefully read everything listed above, then you probably noticed that Trotsky repeated his MISTAKE; therefore he went against Lenin and the party of Bolsheviks one more time.”

I have carefully read everything, you have provided your opinion but no proof of anything!


“Can you tell me the year when he had said this? Error was always on his side, these errors lead to his expulsion from the party of Bolsheviks. But, did he say that after the expulsion? I want to know.”

Around 1939 perhaps, a year before stalin had him murdered!


“What a HYPOCRITE was that Leo Bronshtein! It seems that he never read any of Stalin’s works. And if he did, then how could he dare to say this? Stalin was the leading defender of Leninism, he protected Lenin’s theory from the attacks of Trotsky and his followers and all true Bolsheviks supported comrade Stalin in his ideological struggle.”

This is pure comedy, I can provide HUNDREDS of quotes to show this as complete tripe, give me some time to do some digging and I’ll get back to you.

“I don’t respect Grant, nor Woods. Who are they? Are they trotskyists? If they are, then they are NOBODY. Their subjective viewpoint is not interesting for me.”

Ted Grant (www.tedgrant.org) and Alan Woods, true marxist revolutionaries who have constantly defeated stalinists in debate, before and after the collapse of the USSR.

“I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.”

Like Stalin? HAHA!


“Mr. Anti-leninist, Mr. Trotsky himself can offer this evidence. Read his article “October lessons”.”

I have, where is this evidence? Can I borrow a magnifying glass?

“OK. Lenin’s words are directed against Trotsky’s “permanent revolution. I have to ask again if Trotsky admitted the mistaken character of his “permanent” revolution. “Judas” Trotsky never admitted the main mistake of his half-menshevist past!”

“The mistake here, believe it or not, is with Lenin, Lenin admitted this later on and rethought his theory slightly, I’ll have a look for some quotes.


Quote:” How amusing, the stalinist accusing we bolsheviks of deflecting arguments, when every single piece of criticism directed at stalin is ‘western propoganda’ according to these pondlife!”

Whom are you talking to???
You have escaped from the direct answer one more time.

Quote:” Can you? I don’t see how, this quote merely shows Trotsky holding his hands up to a great mistake he made. Again you say too much about nothing. “

If we suppose that you are right and Trotsky really wrote it “around 1939”, then he had never really realized his mistakes. He wanted to make his own faction in 1923. Did he call this mistake? No, he used the typical methods of all hypocrites, pure words without any matter, that’s all we have in the mentioned quote.

Quote:” I am quite aware of the history of bolshevism thankyou very much, perhaps you should educate yourself also http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/”

Have you ever heard about the opposition of the 46 members of the Communist Party, which was created by Trotsky in 1923? Obviously, your site says nothing about this historical event, unlike the Soviet book, which is called “The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”.

Quote:” “Trotsky and a group of his followers took advantage of Lenin’s illness and decided to attack the party at the end of 1923. They thought that it was the right moment to destroy the party and to overthrow the leadership of the party of Bolsheviks.”

Rubbish! What does it matter to you anyway?”

This is the history. Oh, I have forgotten, you, trotskyists created your own history, which did not contain any “dark” facts from the Trotsky’s biography, didn’t you?

Quote:” Do you ever produce evidence? Or just keep spouting this inane garbage in the hope that someone might believe you?”

My evidence is the history, your evidence is the hypocritical words of Trotsky.

Quote:” History shows nothing on this post”

Of course, it doesn’t show anything to the Trotskyists only. Do you want to be called an ignorant blind Trotsky’s follower?

Quote:” I have carefully read everything, you have provided your opinion but no proof of anything! “

So, you don’t believe to the historical facts! I am not surprised, as these facts attack not only Trotsky, but his theory as whole. Just like I said at the beginning of my previous reply, you , trotskyists never agree with the truth, when it goes against your “theoretical God”.

Quote:” Ted Grant (www.tedgrant.org) and Alan Woods, true marxist revolutionaries who have constantly defeated stalinists in debate, before and after the collapse of the USSR.”

Oh really? Are they anti-soviet bastards?

Quote:” “I prefer to read original works and the objective history, which is written by the true Marxist-Leninists.”

Like Stalin? HAHA! “

I see that your thoughts always go only in one direction. This makes me laugh.

Quote:” I have, where is this evidence?”

Can’t you see it?
Doctors gave you a bad diagnosis, huh?

Quote:” The mistake here, believe it or not, is with Lenin, Lenin admitted this later on and rethought his theory slightly, I’ll have a look for some quotes. “

Don’t forget to provide your quotes with the names of the works. Lenin always was rival to trotsky’s theory. I am interested what quotes you will bring on…….

[bolshevik1917]

I have had more interesting and original debates with jehovas!!

Can I recommend this book to you http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

You see, your arguments are so old, your evidence so poor (and in many cases non existant) that they have been answered years ago in this great book. Theres no story telling in it, just hard facts, evidence and quotes.

Read it, then come back to me - we'll see what your thinking then

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 2:17 am on Dec. 12, 2002
I have had more interesting and original debates with jehovas!!

Can I recommend this book to you http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

You see, your arguments are so old, your evidence so poor (and in many cases non existant) that they have been answered years ago in this great book. Theres no story telling in it, just hard facts, evidence and quotes.

Read it, then come back to me - we'll see what your thinking then

Firstly, I don’t trust to this kind of books. As I have already said, I learned everything only from the original works. When, so called independent” author tries to explain you the relation between two historical persons (in our case they are Lenin and Trotsky) in his work, it always happens that this book presents nothing, but the subjective viewpoint of the author.

Quote:”Theres no story telling in it, just hard facts, evidence and quotes.”

If their facts contradict to the history, if their evidence is the product of their narrow mind and if the quotes are used just like the playing cards to match one another, then their book can’t be called objective. I know theory, believe me, theory answers perfectly on the question who is right and who is wrong. Thank you, but I don’t want to waste my time on reading the book, which you advise. Thanks

[bolshevik1917]

This book contains quotes and evidence, things you seem to ignore.

I find it hilarious that you 'don't trust these kind of books' yet trust the soviet archives - the most distorted library in history.

I will read what you like, if you don't read my book you are ignoring the facts - I will put it down to fear!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote:” This book contains quotes and evidence, things you seem to ignore.”

Falsified quotes and weak evidence, this is ridiculous!

Quote:” I find it hilarious that you 'don't trust these kind of books' yet trust the soviet archives - the most distorted library in history.”

Do you have the right to say this? Soviet Union was SOCIALISTIC state. You, seem to be against it, therefore you are NOT COMMUNIST! Soviet sources never lie, especially when it comes to the history and theory. In contrary, your trotskyist authors are very subjective in their conclusions.

Quote:” if you don't read my book you are ignoring the facts”

Don’t make me laugh.
I know the facts, I just ignore your book….

[bolshevik1917]

I knew you were 'slightly confused' (to put it nicely) but that last post is unreal!

Need I even reply, im sure all the other sensible comrades on this forum will find it as funny as I do.

You are pathetic, I pity you

[Revolution Hero]

LOL

Is that all you have to say?

[bolshevik1917]

It's not actually,

Check out my post 'The permanent revolution, anti - Leninist??' in the history section.

Stalinist lies exposed!