Trotskyism

[Black Cross]

The topic pretty much says it all. I would like to learn more about either trotskyism, or Trotsky himself. If anyone knows of any good books about either, I'd love to hear 'em.
Thanks

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Trotskyism or Leninism? By J.V. Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:55 pm
Trotskyism or Leninism? By J.V. Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)
:lol:

Trotskyism or Leninism? - Harpal Bral (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by ddxt301+June 11, 2007 11:57 pm--> (ddxt301 @ June 11, 2007 11:57 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 11:55 pm
Trotskyism or Leninism? By J.V. Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)
:lol:

Trotskyism or Leninism? - Harpal Bral (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm) [/b]
:lol:

Trotskyism or Leninism? By Vladmir Lenin (http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html)

[Comrade Marcel]

-WHAT IS TROTSKYISM? (Communist Party Alliance)
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/witrot.html

-# The Problem With Trotsky by MIM
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/trotsky.html

-Why We Oppose Trotskyism (Communist Party Alliance)
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%...ml/wwotrot.html (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/wwotrot.html)

-History of Trotskyism
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/org..._trotskyism.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/organization/history_of_trotskyism.htm)

-An outline of Trotskyism's anti-Marxist theories (part one) by Joseph Green
http://www.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/30cTrotsky.html

-ON TROTSKYISM: Problems of theory and history by Kostas Mavrakis
http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/OT73NB.html

-Lu Xun on Stalin and Trotsky
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/luxunonstalin.html

-"We told you so" page with quotes from Stalin and Trotsky
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...ouso/index.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/wetoldyouso/index.html)

* Reply to a typical contemporary Trotskyist
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...mfile=trot1.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trot1.txt)
* Reply II to a typical contemporary Trotskyist
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...mfile=trot2.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trot2.txt)

-Jean-Paul Sartre on Trotskyism's idealism
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...ntrotskyism.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=sartreontrotskyism.txt)

-Trotsky's phony defense of the USSR
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...defenseussr.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotdefenseussr.txt)

-Trotsky and Hitler: For the independence of the Ukraine!
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...tskyukraine.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyukraine.txt)

-Trotsky admits aid to Japanese imperialism
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...rotskyjapan.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyjapan.txt)

-Trotsky's Political Biography in two parts (AKA Trotsky against the Bolsheviks):
http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/...Trotsky1975.htm (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass2-Trotsky1975.htm)
http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/...otsky2-1975.htm (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass3-Trotsky2-1975.htm)

-Trotsky's Ultra-Left Views on Science and the Arts
http://www.allianceml.com/alliance_7.html

-Trotsky and the Red Army
http://www.allianceml.com/PAPER/2004/REDARMY.html

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+June 12, 2007 12:16 am--> (LeftyHenry @ June 12, 2007 12:16 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:57 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 11:55 pm
Trotskyism or Leninism? By J.V. Stalin (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)
:lol:

Trotskyism or Leninism? - Harpal Bral (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm)
:lol:

Trotskyism or Leninism? By Vladmir Lenin (http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html) [/b]
Good article.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You Stalinists and Maoists made one small error by pointed out one site above:

http://www.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/30cTrotsky.html


Yet, just as the Stalinists do, the Trotskyists negate the basic principles of Marx and Lenin... Both Trotskyists and the Stalinists courted the social-democrats, each in their own way.

Part Two is a pox on both your houses. :P

[Eleftherios]

Now I'm going to give you some much better books and articles on the topic :D

http://marxists.org/archive/grant/1990/relevance.htm

http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stali...ohnstone-41.htm (http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone-41.htm)

I also suggest you read John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World, which shows to some degree Trotsky's role in the October Revolution. It can be found in almost any library, bookstore, and online http://marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10da...0days/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/index.htm)

There are many articles written by Trotsky that can be found in the internet as well
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm

[Led Zeppelin]

Read Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...evbet/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)

[Wanted Man]

Here is a good start. :P Right-click and then "View Image" for all about the world's most confusing ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/trees/trotchart2.jpg

Anyway, just to be actually helpful, for a change:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Stalinism and Bolshevism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm) by Trotsky

[Black Cross]

Alright, thanks all. That helps a lot.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 12, 2007 11:24 am
Here is a good start. :P Right-click and then "View Image" for all about the world's most confusing ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/trees/trotchart2.jpg

Anyway, just to be actually helpful, for a change:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/
:lol: what's bad is that that's just in the USA

[Rawthentic]

Sectarianism isnt limited to just Trotskyists, but also "Marxist-Leninists" and other forms of "Leninism."

[Honggweilo]

but with trots only in tenfold. :rolleyes:

Btw the Workers World Party and Party for Freedom and Socialism (which is the only unfortunate split on that list) have only evolved in the process of spliting, distancing themself futher from trotskyism along the way. Eduction through practice! :lol:

the Socialst Workers Party (USA, not the cliffites) arent that bad either

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:24 pm
but with trots only in tenfold. :rolleyes:

As if Trotsky is to be blamed for the sectarianism

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:24 pm
but with trots only in tenfold. :rolleyes:
Right, I'm sure the number is about equal. Count the Maoist, Hoxhaist, Kruschevite organizations and you come to around the same level of splits and sectarianism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dick, I didn't know that the Trots were THAT DISORGANIZED and THAT SECTARIAN! :o

[Black Cross]

...uhhh, i just wanted the names of some good books, haha. i had no idea it would turn into a whole side bar discussion... my bad.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Tariq Ali wrote an introduction to it with cartoon...very basic

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:24 pm
but with trots only in tenfold. :rolleyes:

Btw the Workers World Party and Party for Freedom and Socialism (which is the only unfortunate split on that list) have only evolved in the process of spliting, distancing themself futher from trotskyism along the way. Eduction through practice! :lol:

the Socialst Workers Party (USA, not the cliffites) arent that bad either
Well, trots get out and start a new movement. members of Satlinists parties get out and get killed. :P

EDIT: after watching that image closely I think it's funny... :D

[Leo]

Lenin on Stalin:


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.


I think that a fatal role was played here by hurry and the administrative impetuousness of Stalin and also his infatuation with the renowned "social-nationalism". Infatuation in politics generally and usually plays the worst role.

Lenin to Stalin:


Stalin: You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you, therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.

Looks like Lenin did not miss crucial traits about the inventor of "Leninism".

As for Trotsky, Lenin on Trotsky:


Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

Trotsky was killed for representing the idea of international revolution and he was considered far more dangerous than Stalin by all Western powers, yet at the beginning he was closely tied to the party which was becoming more and more bureaucratic everyday so he did not manage to actually oppose Stalin from within the party and when he did finally break from the party - in other words when he was finally kicked out, he sank more and more into opportunism and sectarianism.


As if Trotsky is to be blamed for the sectarianism.

Well, Trotsky was sectarian himself, sectarianism is a side-effect of opportunism and opportunism is a side-effect of sectarianism.

[Tower of Bebel]

I like the way revolutionaries, and especially marxists tend to stereotype things.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Okay

A) the last testament can't even be verified as written by Lenin, he didn't sign it, nor did he present it.
B) Even if it was Lenin, he was extremely sick and Stalin had been rude to his wife
C) If you look at the shit written in the testament Stalin comes off looking untouched, he implies that trotsky hasn't changed since his menshevik days by going into detail on them and says Bakhurin is essentially a state-capitalist.

Trotsky wasn't killed for representing "international revolution" that is shit and you know it. Under Stalin socialism was proven as a non-russian ideology, it spread to China, North Korea, Eastern Europe and communist movements everywhere emerged. Trotsky was killed for being a fucking scab. Trying to destroy socialism and split the communist movement and shatter it as much as he could. He betrayed the revolution and democratic centralism as Nazi tanks rolled through europe and as the Soviet Union, the world's only socialist state, attempted to rebuild after a devastating civil war under this pressure.

oh yeah and appartently you missed this (http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html)

[Louis Pio]

Even if it was Lenin, he was extremely sick and Stalin had been rude to his wife


Funny how selfproclaimed leninists always want's to drag him in the dirt by writing shit like that. You really actually think that Stalin being rude to his wife is what decides Lenin's stance? The you haven't really grasped anything im sorry to say.

The rest of your post is just the usual rant, just for once take a look at "the revolution betrayed" Trotsky defends communism and the planned economy but points out the errors, hardly the work of a "scab". Seriously scabbing has however been done by many communist parties over the years, also under direct orders from Moscow. For example how they suddenly took the old menshevic 2 stage theory out of history's dustbin, now that's serious scabbing!

Now it is btw quite funny how just the asking of a question about Trotsky can produce such rant's, serves to show he must have gotten something right looking at the guys he pisses of ;)

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:33 pm
Trotsky wasn't killed for representing "international revolution" that is shit and you know it. Under Stalin socialism was proven as a non-russian ideology, it spread to China, North Korea, Eastern Europe and communist movements everywhere emerged. Trotsky was killed for being a fucking scab. Trying to destroy socialism and split the communist movement and shatter it as much as he could. He betrayed the revolution and democratic centralism as Nazi tanks rolled through europe and as the Soviet Union, the world's only socialist state, attempted to rebuild after a devastating civil war under this pressure.

Alliance M-L actually has an article about how the assassination of Trotsky shouldn't even be attributed to Stalin.

If Stalin had wanted Trotsky dead, he was staying in the Soviet embassy in Istanbul for a long time and I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard to have tracked him down sooner.

Also, the guy who assassinated Trotsky was actually a Trotskyist who became disillusioned. If he thought he was doing it in the name of the USSR, that was his own thinking but there has never been any proof that he was an agent.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Leninism+June 13, 2007 12:33 am--> (Leninism @ June 13, 2007 12:33 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 10:24 pm
but with trots only in tenfold. :rolleyes:
Right, I'm sure the number is about equal. Count the Maoist, Hoxhaist, Kruschevite organizations and you come to around the same level of splits and sectarianism. [/b]
No, actually you don't even if you took a whole bunch of ideologies, Marxism-Leninism )i.e. "Stalinism"), M-Lism (revisionist brand), Maoism, and Hoxhaites, etc. you would still come up with less organizations and parties than there are Trotskyites, which is one brand in itself. Also, you will never see that many break-ups...

Looking at the history of Trotskyism is like watching all of Van Damme's films back to back; a shitload of splits for stupid reasons all throughout! :P :D :lol:

[Leo]

A) the last testament can't even be verified as written by Lenin, he didn't sign it, nor did he present it.

He did sign it, it was presented to the Central Committee of the RCP (B) which rejected to publish it. In fact Stalin offered to resign from his post, only knowing that no one in the Central Committee, including Trotsky, would accept his resignation. Trotsky was against the publication of this document too and he even denounced his sympathizer Max Eastman who had found out about the testament and published bits of it in his book called Since Lenin Died.


Even if it was Lenin, he was extremely sick and Stalin had been rude to his wife

:rolleyes:


you look at the shit written in the testament Stalin comes off looking untouched

Lenin had been fighting actively against the power held in the hands of Stalin since late 1922. In September 1922 Lenin opened fire against the national policy of Stalin. In the first part of December he attacked Stalin on the question of the monopoly of foreign trade. On December 25 he wrote the first part of his testament. On December 30 he wrote his letter on the national question (the "bombshell"). On January 4, 1923, he added a postscript to his testament on the necessity of removing Stalin from his position as General Secretary. On January 23 he drew up against Stalin a heavy battery: the project of a Control Commission, a new organ which "should not allow anybody's authority without exception, neither that of the General Secretary [Stalin] nor of any other member of the Central Committee, to prevent them from putting questions, verifying documents, and, in general, from keeping themselves fully informed of all things and from exercising the strictest control over the proper conduct of affairs". In an article on March 2 he dealt Stalin a double blow, both as organizer of the Inspection and as General Secretary. On March 5 he wrote to Trotsky on the subject of his memorandum on the national question: "If you would agree to undertake its defense, I could be at rest." On that same day he for the first time openly joined forces with the irreconcilable Georgian enemies of Stalin, informing them in a special note that he was backing their cause "with all my heart" and was preparing for them documents against Stalin, Ordzhonikidze and Dzerzhinsky. All this is not really leaving Stalin untouched.


Trotsky wasn't killed for representing "international revolution" that is shit and you know it.

Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to the Third Reich, gives a striking testimony in the description of his last meeting with Hitler, just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just concluded; and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the French ambassador appealed to his ‘reason’ and spoke of the social turmoil and the revolutions that might follow a long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent governments. ‘You are thinking of yourself as a victor...’, the ambassador said, ‘but have you given thought to another possibility - that the victor might be Trotsky?’ At this Hitler jumped up (as if he ‘had been hit in the pit of the stomach’) and screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky’s victory, was one more reason why France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich.


Under Stalin socialism was proven as a non-russian ideology, it spread to China, North Korea, Eastern Europe and communist movements everywhere emerged.

By civil wars and invasions :rolleyes:


Trotsky was killed for being a fucking scab.

Yeah, and all the old-Bolsheviks were a bunch of fucking scabs too :rolleyes:


Trying to destroy socialism and split the communist movementand shatter it as much as he could. He betrayed the revolution and democratic centralism as Nazi tanks rolled through europe and as the Soviet Union, the world's only socialist state, attempted to rebuild after a devastating civil war under this pressure.

USSR wasn't socialist and the "movement" it was leading wasn't communist. USSR was capitalist and imperialist. I too, however criticize Trotsky about his attitude towards the counter-revolution in Russia: he should have attacked it much harder.


oh yeah and appartently you missed this

I don't care if Lenin criticized Trotsky. First of all I [fortunately] have nothing to do with Trotskyism and I criticize Trotsky much harsher than Lenin did. Secondly and more importantly, the fact that Lenin criticized Trotsky or that Trotsky criticized Lenin does not make automatically think that one of them is evil. Criticism and discussion is something normal and necessary in the actual proletarian movement. There is, however, a difference between criticizing someone and regarding someone as dangerous to the movement and trying to prevent dangers coming from that person.


Right, I'm sure the number is about equal. Count the Maoist, Hoxhaist, Kruschevite organizations and you come to around the same level of splits and sectarianism.

The splits in Trotskyism and the splits in Stalinism had always been very different. In Trotskyism, first the very sectarian reason for the split came, then there was the split. In Stalinism, first came the split, then the very sectarian reason for the split was made up.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

No he didn't sign it. The will was written by someone who had just undergone a fucking near-fatal stroke doctors said that any political news could give him a real fatal stroke. The rest of the will is literally incomprehensible. He says shit like by increasing the members of the Central Committee it'll gain respect and just leaves it at that. Either that's not him, because it sounds nothing like anything else he wrote, or it is him in a very weak state, whatever it is, despite it being the supposed blessing of trotsky, Stalin is the only one whose political record comes out untouched. The only real critiscism is that Stalin may be bureacratic in his methods, at least he wasn't called a fucking menshevik state-capitalist like trotsky and bakhurin. BTW FYI it was with Lenin's full fucking support that Stalin became General Sectretariat. Shortly after, he suffered a stroke and his doctors said he had to be isolated from all political news otherwise his very fragile state could lead to a fatal stroke.

Oh and where is that little trotsky story coming from? Trotsky was dead "right before the start of WWII".

Lastly, yes, people&#39;s war, which is the most perfected way of carrying out proletarian revolution, and red army liberation. All the workers&#39; movements of Eastern Europe had been systematically destroyed by the Nazis. Unions were banned, communists were rounded up and send to concentration camps and turned into candles. That was the only way socialism could be brought, but of course you would prefer free market capitalism in these countries <_<

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 08:03 pm
Lenin&#39;s "Will", blah blah, rabble rabble, blah smuge slanter banter
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.htm...400000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

that book is good but the PLP are idiots. But yeah someone should thank them just for posting it on the interweb.

Yo ddxt,

can you make me a Stalin doggy avatar???

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:33 pm
Okay

A) the last testament can&#39;t even be verified as written by Lenin, he didn&#39;t sign it, nor did he present it.
B) Even if it was Lenin, he was extremely sick and Stalin had been rude to his wife
C) If you look at the shit written in the testament Stalin comes off looking untouched, he implies that trotsky hasn&#39;t changed since his menshevik days by going into detail on them and says Bakhurin is essentially a state-capitalist.

Trotsky wasn&#39;t killed for representing "international revolution" that is shit and you know it. Under Stalin socialism was proven as a non-russian ideology, it spread to China, North Korea, Eastern Europe and communist movements everywhere emerged. Trotsky was killed for being a fucking scab. Trying to destroy socialism and split the communist movement and shatter it as much as he could. He betrayed the revolution and democratic centralism as Nazi tanks rolled through europe and as the Soviet Union, the world&#39;s only socialist state, attempted to rebuild after a devastating civil war under this pressure.

oh yeah and appartently you missed this (http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html)
:lol:

It all depends on interpretation.

[Leo]

The only real critiscism is that Stalin may be bureacratic in his methods, at least he wasn&#39;t called a fucking menshevik state-capitalist like trotsky

:lol: Actually the only real criticisms towards Trotsky is that he is bureaucratic in his methods.

As for Stalin, Lenin says: "Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution" and "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

Now, you obviously didn&#39;t read it the first time and you are simply telling me what you memorized from Stalinists texts about this. Lenin is saying that he is worried that Stalin will use the unlimited authority concentrated in his hands with sufficient caution. He thinks that Stalin is intolerable at his post. He thinks that Stalin is intolerant, disloyal, impolite and capricious. He thinks that Stalin is dangerous in his post so he is calling for Stalin&#39;s removal.


The will was written by someone who had just undergone a fucking near-fatal stroke doctors said that any political news could give him a real fatal stroke. The rest of the will is literally incomprehensible. He says shit like by increasing the members of the Central Committee it&#39;ll gain respect and just leaves it at that. Either that&#39;s not him, because it sounds nothing like anything else he wrote

Oh, it&#39;s not him because he attacks Stalin :lol:

Lenin devoted the political work of the last years of his life to attacking Stalin.


Oh and where is that little trotsky story coming from?

The Prophet Outcast, Isaac Deutscher, p515.


Trotsky was dead "right before the start of WWII".

Trotsky was killed in 1940. When Hitler was talking to Coulondre, war hadn&#39;t started yet, Hitler was trying to convince Coulondre that France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich.

You are embarrassing yourself.


Lastly, yes, people&#39;s war, which is the most perfected way of carrying out proletarian revolution

People&#39;s war has nothing to do with being a "proletarian revolution", it is neither proletarian nor a revolution, it is a coup d&#39;etat, a war within the bourgeoisie.


and red army liberation

Which is simply a fancy name for imperialist invasion.


That was the only way socialism could be brought, but of course you would prefer free market capitalism in these countries

It wasn&#39;t socialism. I don&#39;t prefer any of the realistic bourgeois options you are capable of comprehending, I am against world imperialism, including American imperialism, Russian imperialism, Chinese imperialism, local nationalist imperialism and so forth. I am only for proletarian revolution, and proletarian revolution can only be made by the proletariat - not an imperialist army.




Lenin&#39;s "Will", blah blah, rabble rabble, blah smuge slanter banter

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.htm...400000000000000


;) - Lenin spent the last half year of his political life attacking Stalin because he considered Stalin dangerous.

:angry: - BUT HE WAS SO NICE TO STALIN BEFORE SO HE COULD NOT HAVE POLITICALLY ATTACKED STALIN&#33;

;) - :rolleyes: <_< Sigh...

[Honggweilo]

The Prophet Outcast, Isaac Deutscher, p515.
Talk about "cult of personality" :lol:

[black magick hustla]

i like memorizing stalinist texts :P

[gilhyle]

In answer to the original question, there are no really good books about &#39;trotskyism&#39;. Luckily Trotsky is easy to read. read

The Permanent Revolution
The Revolution Betrayed
The Transitional Programme

[Louis Pio]

Talk about "cult of personality"

Isaac Deutscher wasn&#39;t a trotskyist, probably why he wrote like he did, I find his book to be shite.
Haven&#39;t read his biography of Stalin yet and don&#39;t think I can be bothered too either


Also, the guy who assassinated Trotsky was actually a Trotskyist who became disillusioned. If he thought he was doing it in the name of the USSR, that was his own thinking but there has never been any proof that he was an agent.


His mom was a prominent stalinist, he came in stalinist circles etc. Of course concrete proof to him being on the payrole of the KGB can be hard to find, archives are hard to get into, but any sane person can do the "math" themselves.

Anyway Gilhyle makes some good suggestions on what to start with if interested in Trotsky.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:46 pm

Also, the guy who assassinated Trotsky was actually a Trotskyist who became disillusioned. If he thought he was doing it in the name of the USSR, that was his own thinking but there has never been any proof that he was an agent.


His mom was a prominent stalinist, he came in stalinist circles etc. Of course concrete proof to him being on the payrole of the KGB can be hard to find, archives are hard to get into, but any sane person can do the "math" themselves.


Ramon Mercador was a Stalinist alright. He served as a foreign agent in the NKVD, the leading secret police organization of the USSR. He was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union Medal and has a place of honor in the KGB museum in Moscow. :P

[Louis Pio]

Haha ok didn&#39;t know that.
I dunno why some stalinists feel the need to tell the other story then.
They should just come clean and say they don&#39;t mind killing all the people in the movement who don&#39;t agree with them, of course that would make their strange claim to be a continuation of the bolshevics look as what is really is: false to the core.

[Vargha Poralli]

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

- James P Cannon.

For the Basis of Trotskyism start with this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/guides/index.htm), and go through this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/index.htm) and finally come here. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 11:54 am



































;) - Lenin spent the last half year of his political life attacking Stalin because he considered Stalin dangerous.

:angry: - BUT HE WAS SO NICE TO STALIN BEFORE SO HE COULD NOT HAVE POLITICALLY ATTACKED STALIN&#33;

;) - :rolleyes: <_< Sigh...

oddly enough, "his" sudden change of opinion of stalin occured at the same time that HE HAD A FUCKING NEAR-FATAL STROKE AND WAS SICK BEYOND RECOVERY ALSO, STALIN HAPPENED TO BE THE ONE WHO WANTED LENIN TO LIVE LONGER AND THUS, TRIED TO KEEP HIM OUT OF POLITICS AND INTO RECOVERY AS THE FUCKING DOCTORS RECCOMENDED NO WONDER LENIN WOULD CONSIDER HIM RUDE


I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

wow that&#39;s what i said,

the only real critiscisms "he" has of stalin is that he was rude to his wife and that he might not always be able to make the right decisions. That&#39;s exactly what I said.


Now, you obviously didn&#39;t read it the first time and you are simply telling me what you memorized from Stalinists texts about this. Lenin is saying that he is worried that Stalin will use the unlimited authority concentrated in his hands with sufficient caution. He thinks that Stalin is intolerable at his post. He thinks that Stalin is intolerant, disloyal, impolite and capricious. He thinks that Stalin is dangerous in his post so he is calling for Stalin&#39;s removal.


no he thinks that that&#39;s a possibility that it may happen. That&#39;s a poor critiscism. I think people "may" do alot of things, doesn&#39;t mean I think they "will". When Lenin brings up the fact that Trotsky was a big menshevik, he does it because he implies that trotsky hasn&#39;t changed that much. That&#39;s a far worse critiscism to be made then you may not always make the right decision. NO ONE ALWAYS MAKES THE RIGHT DECISIONS.



Oh and where is that little trotsky story coming from?

The Prophet Outcast, Isaac Deutscher, p515.

:mellow: .....bwahahahahaha omfg are you serious :lol: :lol:


Trotsky was killed in 1940. When Hitler was talking to Coulondre, war hadn&#39;t started yet, Hitler was trying to convince Coulondre that France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich.

You are embarrassing yourself.

*sigh* you missed the point. Okay a the war picked up in 1940-41 trotsky died in 1940, but politically as a force in the USSR he died long before that. As a force that was trying to undermine revolution and communism all over the world and trying to split the movement, yes he still was a prominent scab but as a force that could takeover in the USSR no way.


People&#39;s war has nothing to do with being a "proletarian revolution", it is neither proletarian nor a revolution, it is a coup d&#39;etat, a war within the bourgeoisie.

no it is revolutionary warfare, the highest and most revolutionary path to revolution in the oppressed parts of the world. It is, and always has been firmly based in the masses of proletarians and poor peasants. Engels said the proletariat wins its emancipation on the battlefield. people&#39;s war is way we do that.


It wasn&#39;t socialism. I don&#39;t prefer any of the realistic bourgeois options you are capable of comprehending, I am against world imperialism, including American imperialism, Russian imperialism, Chinese imperialism, local nationalist imperialism and so forth. I am only for proletarian revolution, and proletarian revolution can only be made by the proletariat - not an imperialist army.

the masses of people in these country wanted socialism they were liberated from fascism by a proletarian army. They had stood up alongside the red army and fought against the fascist monster which you support. But their vanguard had been destroyed. This was the only way towards socialism. Without a revolutionary vanguard there can be no revolution. The Red Army had to act as one.

[Tower of Bebel]

no he thinks that that&#39;s a possibility that it may happen. That&#39;s a poor critiscism. I think people "may" do alot of things, doesn&#39;t mean I think they "will". When Lenin brings up the fact that Trotsky was a big menshevik, he does it because he implies that trotsky hasn&#39;t changed that much. That&#39;s a far worse critiscism to be made then you may not always make the right decision. NO ONE ALWAYS MAKES THE RIGHT DECISIONS.

So it didn&#39;t happen at all?

[Leo]

oddly enough, "his" sudden change of opinion of stalin occured at the same time that HE HAD A FUCKING NEAR-FATAL STROKE AND WAS SICK BEYOND RECOVERY ALSO, STALIN HAPPENED TO BE THE ONE WHO WANTED LENIN TO LIVE LONGER AND THUS, TRIED TO KEEP HIM OUT OF POLITICS AND INTO RECOVERY AS THE FUCKING DOCTORS RECCOMENDED NO WONDER LENIN WOULD CONSIDER HIM RUDE

:rolleyes: So Lenin attacked Stalin politically because he had personal problems with Stalin? You don&#39;t really seem to have a high opinion on the person who you worship, as what you describe is simply demonstrating that you see Lenin as a petty-bourgeois individualist.

Or alternatively you are not secure at all about your position and you are getting more and more ridiculous as you try to defend it :lol: Ah, poor kid, everyone were too harsh on you, weren&#39;t them?


mellow.gif .....bwahahahahaha omfg are you serious laugh.gif laugh.gif

:rolleyes: <_< Deutscher is a far more reliable source than all those ridiculous Stalin-worshiping websites posted here.


Okay a the war picked up in 1940-41 trotsky died in 1940, but politically as a force in the USSR he died long before that.

Obviously. The point was that Coulondre was suggesting that there could be a revolution in Russia following the war, similar to the revolutions which happened after the World War 1. From the bourgeois standpoint, this would have been "the victory of Trotsky", this is as much as the bourgeoisie is capable of understanding revolutions.

[Louis Pio]

From this discussion it seems Lefty Henry actually has nothing to do with marxism at all.
He tries to make all political discussions into who badmouthed who&#39;s wife? Not materialist but quite idealist.
No wonder stalinism and menshevism are to sides of the same coin.