Why Trotskyism is Reactionary

[Cassius Clay]

Why Trotskyism Is Reactionary

The Progressive Labor Party recognizes that Trotskyism is phony communism, also called "revisionism" – capitalist ideas in a left disguise. Many people, including many Trotskyists themselves, don’t understand the reactionary essence of Trotskyism.

In this article we’ll expose the fallacies of Trotskyism in two ways.

We’ll discuss some facts about Trotsky himself that expose how reactionary he was.

We’ll expose the idealist* – non-Marxist, anti-materialist – basis of Trotskyism.

Trotskyist groups trace their beginnings in pro-Trotsky factions within the Bolshevik Party — called the Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Bolshevik, or CPSU(B) – during the 1920s. When Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1928, his supporters were also expelled from other parties in the Communist International, or ‘Comintern’, or quit on their own. Some of these groups formed new Trotskyist parties in various countries, continuing after Trotsky’s assassination in 1940.

Never large or influential anywhere, the Trotskyist parties did attract left-leaning and anti-Soviet intellectuals, though few workers. Their determined struggle against the Soviet Union and Comintern earned them publicity by the capitalists far beyond their numbers.

After Khrushchev’s denunciations of Stalin in 1956 and 1961, but especially with the end of the USSR in the early ‘90s, the pro-Soviet revisionist groups shrank in numbers and influence. The disappearance of pro-China communist groups after Deng Xiao-ping had led the Chinese Communist Party swiftly to the right upon Mao Tse-tung’s death in 1976 completed the collapse of the old Communist movement. Trotskyist political parties have become more prominent in a much smaller "left" no longer dominated by pro-Soviet groups.

Cult of "Great Leaders" Always Reactionary
Even if Trotsky had been a great revolutionary and theorist like Marx or Lenin, Trotskyism would still be reactionary, because Trotskyist groups treat him as an unquestionable authority. In reality, Trotsky was a dishonest reactionary, whose arrogance and great ego led him to be one of the main founts of anti-communism for capitalist exploiters.

We in PLP do not intend to simply continue the "Stalin – Trotsky" battles of the past. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that workers "have nothing to lose but their chains." The working class has no reason to hang on to outmoded ideas, refight old battles, or embrace errors made by our heroic ancestors in the communist movement.

We have studied Trotskyism, ready to learn whatever we might find that was valuable. If Trotskyism, and Trotskyist parties, offered anything positive, we would embrace it. If Trotskyists were forces we ever could unite with, we would do so.

But we can’t. Trotskyism has nothing positive to offer the world’s working class and the struggle for a communist world. It is a reactionary, idealist philosophy.

Leon Trotsky 1879-1940
Trotsky was a brilliant man, a fluent and prolific writer, a powerful public speaker and, until August 1917, a Menshevik. By the middle of 1917 the Tsar had abdicated, a government of big capitalists had taken over Russia, and the working class in the large cities had proven open to revolutionary leadership. Trotsky and some others, the "Mezhraiontsy" or Inter-district committee, joined the Bolshevik Party, where Lenin immediately put Trotsky on the Central Committee. He played some role in the 1917 revolution, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the capitalist government, and a more important role as military and political leader during the Civil War for the next four years.

Trotsky shared with Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks the view that the working class in Russia could not long hold power without revolutions in the advanced industrial countries of Western Europe. Trotsky was on the "right" of this continuum of views, believing more firmly than most that a failure of such revolutions would inevitably doom the socialist revolution in Russia. Others were less fatalistic.

This belief led Trotsky to advocate devoting all efforts to stimulating international revolutions. That, in turn, earned Trotsky a reputation as a "leftist". But note that this "super-revolutionary" attitude and this reputation come from an economic determinist, pessimistic, and ultimately "right" analysis – that capitalism still had a "progressive" role to play in industrializing Russia, unless this could be done with the aid of more advanced socialist countries.

Trotsky’s Arrogance
Many former Mensheviks became good Bolsheviks. All Bolsheviks had doubts and questions about how to develop "socialism in one country" if – as proved the case – there were no helpful revolutions in advanced capitalist societies. What determined Trotsky’s reactionary political path was his personality – his personal weaknesses.

Trotsky was an extreme individualist. Arrogant in his personal relations, he angered even his greatest admirers. Trotsky was convinced that he alone deserved to succeed Lenin as leader of the Bolshevik Party. Politically, this meant that Trotsky was constantly trying to gain power, forming alliances with other prominent Bolsheviks rather than supporting the party’s line. Arrogance, of course, is an extreme form of idealism.

Factionalism
During the 1920s the Bolsheviks had annual Conferences and Congresses in which they open debated the future course of the revolution. Trotsky’s positions were consistently defeated. Since his great ego could not accept these defeats, Trotsky continued to form secret alliances with other dissident communists, even after such "factions" had been outlawed by a party vote in 1921.

According to Democratic Centralism, all communists must fight to put the party’s line into practice once it has been decided upon by debate and vote. There is no other way to judge whether the Party’s line is correct or not. For, if all members do not try to put it into effect with all their effort, who can say, in the case of failure, whether the line was incorrect, or whether it was correct but just never carried out?

Factionalism creates a situation where party members spend their time organizing around their own line, rather than vigorously trying to put the party’s line into effect. This is a recipe for idealism, careerism, and disaster.

Trotsky was called to account time and again for this in the party debates of the 1920s, recanted – dishonestly, as it turned out — and was eventually expelled for incorrigible factionalizing. When he and some followers organized a counter-demonstration at the Bolshevik Revolution’s 10th anniversary in 1927, Trotsky was expelled from the Party, exiled to a remote city, and finally deported from the USSR in January 1929.

Utterly lacking in modesty and self-criticism, Trotsky rationalized his factional activity by attributing his political defeats to dishonest maneuvers – "stacking the votes", admitting "politically immature" workers as members, and counter-factionalizing. He never accepted that his ideas were, or could be, wrong. He had no faith in the collective discussions and struggles of the Bolshevik party. He was out of touch with reality. In short, he was an idealist.

To account for his defeats Trotsky always complained about a "lack of democracy" in the Party But within the ranks of his own followers he tolerated no disagreement. The Trotskyist movement was a caricature of a "cult of personality." The "cult of Stalin" has long since been criticized – Stalin himself attacked it many times — and is gone. But the "cult of Trotsky" has survived to the present day. No Trotskyist group publicly criticizes The Master. Trotsky’s writings are said to be always right, unchanging – naturally, since Trotsky was killed in 1940 – and yet, somehow, still always valid.

Of course this is idealist nonsense. No ideas can be "forever correct", and Trotsky’s were never correct in the first place. Marx once said: Criticize everything! That is the only materialist, scientific way to proceed. Trotskyist groups have no chance whatsoever of understanding reality correctly, much less of leading a working-class movement for communism, because they are devoted to an idealist, religion-like reverence for Trotsky’s works.

This attitude stems from Trotsky himself. One source was Trotsky’s own egoism. Another was his removal from political struggle. He had long been divorced from contact with the working class, shown by his proposal in the early 20s to ban unions and put workers under military discipline. His following was overwhelmingly among intellectuals. After his exile in 1929, this divorce from practice deepened.

Communists know that, even with a thorough grounding in Marxism-Leninism, only devoted political practice in the working-class movement makes any kind of correct understanding of reality, and evaluation of theory, possible. The Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Tse-tung discovered – not by "theory," but through practice forced upon them by bitter necessity – that peasants could be the leading force for a working-class revolution and, therefore, that the dictatorship of the working class could be won in a basically agricultural country. But to faithful Trotskyists the Chinese Revolution, like that in the Soviet Union, was "doomed from the start," because it did not follow Trotsky’s economic-determinist path!

A third result of Trotsky’s own idealism and arrogance was his "great man" theory of "Stalin-as-devil." Since Stalin — a modest man of working-class background and a better listener than a speaker — had defeated him, the "great genius", it must have been through dishonesty.

Trotsky originated the false notion of Stalin as a power-hungry, all-powerful, malevolent monster who supposedly ran the USSR to suit his own paranoid fantasies. This version of the "great man" theory is simply a mirror-image of Trotsky’s own inflated view of himself, and is equally idealist. Neither Stalin nor anyone else was or could be like this.

But this notion of "Stalinism" originated with Trotsky and his followers, who are its greatest champions. It was enthusiastically embraced by all anti-communists, and is the main bourgeois version of anti-communism today. Trotsky became the main fount of anti-communism. In all the many books he wrote while in exile in the ‘30s he – Trotsky — is the hero, while Stalin is the villain.

Some bourgeois historians say Trotsky falsified his own role in the Revolution. Certainly all his versions of subsequent political struggles are dishonest. His biography of Stalin opens with a racist account of Stalin’s ancestry derived, as he admits himself, from – a Nazi!

Trotsky’s Corruption
During the mid-1930s three public trials were held in Moscow. Former Bolshevik leaders, together with many lesser figures, confessed to plotting against the Soviet government in collusion with the exiled Trotsky. They also confessed to contacts with German and Japanese militarists.

Twenty years later Khrushchev announced that the charges were lies, and "rehabilitated" the "victims" – meaning, declared them innocent, but without any evidence. Trotsky and his followers seemed to be vindicated. But after Trotsky’s archives (at Harvard) were opened in 1980, researchers learned that, sure enough, Trotsky had lied when he said he had not been in touch with prominent oppositionists within the USSR.

Since 1991 a number of the confessions on which the Moscow Trials were based have been published. The circumstances surrounding them make it clear that they were not forged or obtained under torture. This strongly suggests that the original charges made against the defendants in the famous Moscow Trials -- including against Trotsky, who was an "absent defendant" in each trial -- were more or less true. A dangerous conspiracy against the Soviet government really did exist. There is even some evidence that Trotsky was indeed in contact with Japanese militarists.

Even while denying all this, Trotsky was calling for the overthrow of the Soviet government, trying to gain admission to the US so he could testify before the anti-working class House Committee on Un-American Activities, informing on Communists in Mexico to the FBI, and writing attacks on Stalin and the USSR in the American capitalist press, such as Life magazine. This behavior cost Trotsky many of his bourgeois sympathizers.

Trotskyism Today
The Trotskyist movement reflects all the same idealist errors of its origins. To them, Trotsky’s writings offer "answers" to all the problems of the world’s working class – which are, of course, the same answers as Trotsky "discovered" in the ‘20s and, especially, the ‘30s, when he had little to do but write and plot.

The Trotskyists continue the "cult" of Trotsky. They never criticize him, and so never learn anything. They never doubt that Trotsky’s works were valid in their own time, which they were not and could not have been.

They distrust workers, because – remember – the "ignorant" Soviet workers of the 1920s rejected Trotsky’s "brilliant" leadership and ideas for the "dull" Stalin, while "smart" intellectuals embraced Trotsky in larger numbers. Like Trotsky himself, they are utterly incapable of communist modesty and self-criticism.

Trotskyists treat Trotsky’s voluminous writings as though they were accurate, trustworthy accounts, instead of heavily biased, self-serving stories. They would laugh to scorn anyone who took this attitude to, say, Stalin’s works, but they cannot see the same error when they make it themselves.

They are also "locked" into the "cult of Lenin", which Trotsky shared with Stalin and the communist movement generally. Many of Lenin’s statements are similar to Trotsky’s. Many of Lenin’s statements also provided support for Stalin’s later policies. For Trotskyists, the "cult" of Lenin sustains the "cult" of Trotsky. Real Marxist-Leninists recognize that all such "cults" are reactionary, idealist.

They also "believe" Trotsky’s denials that he was involved in plotting the overthrow of the Soviet government. In general, they believe everything Trotsky said.

In short, Trotskyists’ whole political perspective is based upon refusal to question Trotsky, his writings, and his actions. Since they never question Trotsky, they are doomed to repeat Trotsky’s errors, while adding some errors of their own.

Today the line of the Trotskyist groups is much like that of the revisionist, formerly pro-Soviet, groups:

support for nationalism among "oppressed nations," which history has proven to be no solution to imperialist or capitalist oppression;

United Fronts with "liberal" bourgeois groups against fascism, or simply against conservatives;

the promotion of "socialism," meaning pretty much what the Soviets meant by it – social-welfare state capitalism, with great inequalities among managers and workers -- the same system that led right back to capitalism everywhere it was tried;

a "multi-stage" theory of how to arrive at communism -- in the rare instances when they even mention communism -- , and therefore no fight for communist revolution at all.

Factionalism remains a principle in all Trotskyist parties and groups. Consequently, Trotskyist groups are continually splitting into more groups. Each of these grouplets competes in the game of ‘Who follows The Master the most faithfully?’ Therefore, each becomes more and more entrenched in its idealism and sectarianism.

The main political errors of Trotskyist groups are the same as they have been for many years. This is logical, since they cannot change their basic ideas in conformity with reality.

The main importance of Trotskyist groups for the capitalist ruling classes are the following:

misleading mass movements into alliances with the "liberal" ruling class – the main forces of capitalist rule – against "reactionaries" and fascists;

misleading honest people into supporting nationalism, rather than fighting for proletarian internationalism, even when those nationalists are overtly fascist.

most important, spreading anti-communist lies, especially concerning the history of the Communist movement, and most especially, about Stalin and the Soviet Union in his day.

What Real Communists – the PLP – Are Like
We in PLP are very appreciative of the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The great communists movements associated with these leaders’ names accomplished wonderful things for the working class of the world. We have much positive to learn from them.

At the same time, we are sharply critical of the errors these great movements and leaders made. We have long made public our criticisms of Lenin, Stalin and Mao in Road to Revolution III (1971) and Road to Revolution IV (1982), and in many articles in PL Magazine and The Communist. We continue to do this.

Communists in PLP believe that as workers we have no "sacred cows," Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or anyone else, whom we hold "beyond criticism." Despite their many successes, the communist movement represented and led by these great figures failed to build a classless, egalitarian society run by workers. We have to be the "dwarves on the shoulders of giants," seeing farther than they because we build upon their successes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...and so the old inner struggles continue to divide us, and the capitalists laugh their asses off at how the communists fight each other.

While you CLAIM that you do not wish to continue the old Stalin-Trotsky debate, Cassius, this is in fact exactly what you are doing. Basically saying that Stalin was right and Trotsky was wrong. (which is a very strange thing to claim, seeing how Stalin's policies lead to disaster...)

(Edited by Edric O at 12:17 am on May 13, 2003)

[nz revolution]

Why not talk about how Stalinism failed in both China and the SU

[YKTMX]

This would have been interesting in the 30's, now? Who cares, Stalinism failed, everything trotsky predicted came true. Trotsky is remebered as an integral part of the October revolution and a real socialist, Stalin is a caricature of everything that went wrong.

[RedComrade]

What a crock of shit Stalinist pig!

Your honestly telling me that "Trotskyist" groups treat Trotsky with anymore reverance then exclusively Leninist groups treat Lenin or even funnier exclusively Stalinist groups treat Stalin? Even many Marxist groups have frozen Marx's ideas in the rigid unnadaptable dogma that comes with the cult of leadership. The facts are Trotsky and the Trotskyist movement is no more embrasive of the cult of leadership then Stalinists are, and you know it. The rest of that paragraph is ridiculous and is based soley on opinions. It does however offer a telling insight into the Stalinist mindset which sees anything contradictory to the Stalinist line as "anti-communist" revealing the dogmatic, closeminded, revisionist attitude held by most Stalinists.

The articles joking nature is exemplified by the following paragraphs. It goes from mentioning Trotsky's devosion to expanding revolution (the authentic Marxist line might I add, contradictory to the revisionism of "Socialism in one country") to saying that this somehow meant he thought capitalism had a progressive role to play in Russia. What a joke, not to mention this contradictory to what you yourself had argued in the past. Just months ago werent you saying Trotsky was embracing fanatical anti-capitalism which was in the end harmful. One minute you argue that Trotsky took much to swift and harsh of an approach to transforming Russia and the next minute you claim he took a capitalist approach in which he thought "capitalism had a progressive role for Russia". Tell me hypocrite which one is it? If Trotsky was towing the true Marxist line (not marxist-leninist but marxist) he would probably have said capitalism had a progressive role to play, but he didnt. Untouched Marxism is founded on the beleif that feudal socities must first go through a period of capitalism before they can make a sucessful transformation to socialism, so indeed if Trotsky really had said capitalism had a progressive role to play in Feudal Russia he would have be towing a non-revisionist line, he did not say that however and was even farther left of Lenin.

The article then jumps on to clear up any doubts we may have had about its fanatically Stalinist nature. It openly proclaims that good Bolshviks towed the party line which is defined strictly as the Stalinist/Revisionist theory of Socialism in one country. This has got to be one of the most distorted and blatantly Stalinist lies I've ever read. Trotsky was expelled from the Politburo because he was a threat, a threat to the murderous bureacry perpetuated by one of the most evil men who ever lived, Josef Stalin. Trotskys continual exposure of Stalinist lies and revisionism was what ultimately led to their extermination. Trotskys expulsion from the party was sealed when in May 1927 the massacre of thousands of Chinese communists by Chaing Kai-Shek in Shanghai was met with the Soviet politburo pushing the Chinese communist into alliance with Chaing, needless to say Trotsky was quick to point out this revisionism and flat out betrayal of the Politburo which won his death sentence and gave the remaining doubters the resolve to see him removed. The gradual erosion of Trotskys power had already been going on for sometime, ever since Stalin had begun using his position as Secretary to replace opponents at all levels of the hierarchy with hand-picked loyalists which would later lead to the massive corruption and clientalism that haunted the Soviet Union. Ever since then the party conference of 1924 when he had hand picked the speakers to offer support for his "socialism in one country", anti-industrialization, and to oppose Trotskys marxist approach to foreign policy (something Stalin continually rejected, typified by his support Kai-shek after the Shanghai massacres). The ideas on which Trotsky built his career (expanding state planning, accelerating industrialization, and instigating revolution in Europe) are anything but revisionist friend, however i cant say the same for socialism in one country.

This is hypocrisy at its finest. On one level it criticizes Trotskyists to adhering to a 60 year old doctrine which never changes but then they go right back on to criticize Trotsky for not being glued to the doctrines of Marx and call him revisionist. Why is a person who adheres to Trotsky a close-minded dogmatist but someone who doesnt adhere word for word to Marx a traitorous revisionist. Why is it bad to adhere to one ideology but then a horrible unforgivable "anti-communist" sin to change ones approach to another mans doctrine? Then to expand on its hypocrisy the article goes on to praise the maxim of "Criticize Everything!" when in the previous paragraph it attacks Trotsky for his justified criticism of the "socialism in one country" theory. Which one are you going to stick with marx who says criticize everything or Stalinist "democratic" centralism which proclaims that once the group of hand picked loyalists decides something it is counter productive and wrong to question it any more? Stalinist groups have no chance whatsoever of understanding reality correctly, much less of leading a working-class movement for communism, because they are devoted to an idealist, religion-like reverence of Democratic Centralism and Stalinism which prevents the initial decision of the group from ever being amended or questioned.

You mean his will to embrace one of the pillars of Communism as laid out by Marx and Engels which is the formation of labor armies? If you claim this measure is out of touch you must condemn Marx and Engels not Trotsky because it was they who originally had that idea. Might I also remind you that both of those individuals were never once working class yet they still form the pillars of our movement, they were both intellectuals. More hypocrisy above you had said that he never ceased the political struggle for his ideals and then you say he was removed from it, this paper is so full of holes... More hypocrisy first you bash Trotskyist for there foolish ways of not abandoning or adapting an ideology 60 years old and then you go on to say the only way to truly perceive reality is a devotion to Marxism which is even older then that. On one level you say question everything and then the next minute you say only throught thourough devotion to our Stalinst bull shit can lead to true reality, what garbage. Maoism for good or bad is also a deviation from orthodox marxism which states that a communist revolution will come from the industrial workers, yet another example of your hypocrisy, embracing revisionism here, rejecting it there. Oh and another note it was Stalin who almost doomed the Chinese communist movement when he continued to support the republic and push for a peaceful settlement even after the May massacres which Trotsky not Stalin strongly criticized.

If my memory serves me correctly it was Stalin not Trotsky who had his opponent hunted to the ends of the Earth and butchered. If I recall correctly it was Stalin not Trotsky who would write off purge after purge as a response to "trotskyist conspiracies and sabotage". Any git with half a brain can see it was Stalin who villified, persecuted, and demonized the other to a greater extent.

OH MY FUCKING GOD ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????????????????????????????????? That is why the interrogators in those trials have come forth and publically admitted they used torture and threats to extract those confessions! Ive seen your evidence to the links between Trotsky and Japan and they consist of one Trotskyist in Asia dealing with the Japanese as if Trotsky was some super-human God who knew of all of his thousands of followers actions and somehow had something to do with one of thousands actions, keep dreaming your evidence wouldnt have even stood up in a Moscow show trial. You even go on to admit Trotsky and others were not public at their trials, what hypocrist what foolishness. I cant help but beleive this paper is some kind of sick joke put out their by the friends of the Iraqi info minister. Beleive me I stand whole-heartedly behind Trotskys calls for the removal of Josef Stalin as should any reasonable compassionate human being. If informing on Stalinist agents who wished to bring the Stalinist model to America prevented the spread of Stalinism then I say good for Trotsky, of course this claim is a lie though.

The Stalinist movement reflects all the same idealist errors of its origins. To them, Stalins’s writings offer "answers" to all the problems of the world’s working class.

The Stalinists continue the "cult" of Stalin. They never criticize him, and so never learn anything. They never doubt that Stalin’s works were valid in their own time, which they were not and could not have been.

They distrust workers, because – remember – the "ignorant" Soviet farmers of the 1930s rejected Stalin’s "brilliant" leadership and ideas, while "good" bolsheviks embraced Stalin in larger numbers. Like Stalin himself, they are utterly incapable of communist modesty and self-criticism; and saw everyone who disagreed with them as a saboteur, kulak, enemy of the people, of Trotskyist plotter and consequently purged millions of innocent army officers, party members, workers, and farmers.

Stalinists treat Stalin and his loyalists voluminous writings and forged accounts as though they were accurate, trustworthy accounts, instead of heavily biased, self-serving stories. They would laugh to scorn anyone who took this attitude to, say, Trotsky’s works, but they cannot see the same error when they make it themselves.

They also "believe" Stalin’s claims that the millions of purged peasants, workers, army officers, and party cadre including Trotsky were involved in plotting the overthrow of the Soviet government. In general, they believe everything Stalin said.

In short, Stalinists’ whole political perspective is based upon refusal to question Stalin, his claims, and his actions. Since they never question Stalin, they are doomed to repeat Stalin’s errors, while adding some errors of their own.

In one section you claimed Trotskyists see all peasant involvement as dooming the revolution, than explain this staight from the Trotskyists mouths:


"3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie"

Today the line of the Stalinist groups is much like that of the revisionist, formerly pro-fascist, groups:

support for nationalism among "socialist" countries and a desire for "socialism in one country" which history has proven to be no solution to imperialist or capitalist oppression;

Now you make one of the biggest lies ever! You claim it is Trotsky who supports popular or united fronts ! Well explain this then dipshit! :
http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/popula...arfrontism.html (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/popularfrontism.html)

Looks like you got caught in the act of polling all those false lies out your ass, dont try and pull it Stalinist scum, real communists wont let you get away with it.

Yet again more hypocrisy, I thought the Trotskyists were saboteurs who sought to destroy the soviet experiment? Now they agree with it? This is a really poor attempt to blame everything bad on Trotsky friend.

Multi-stage theory? Wasnt it Stalin who came up with all the 5 year plans? I thought you supported Stalin, oh yea HYPOCRITE ALERT!

The main importance of Stalinist groups for the capitalist ruling classes are the following:

misleading mass movements into alliances with the "liberal" ruling class – the main forces of capitalist rule – against "reactionaries" and fascists; the united fronts that were popularized by Stalin and his continual alliance with monsters such as Nazi Germany with the German-Soviet pact etc.

misleading honest people into supporting nationalism, rather than fighting for proletarian internationalism, by seeking to build socialism in one country even when those nationalists are overtly fascist, like when Stalin signed the Nazi Soviet pact even while thousands of communists were being murdered by Hitler.

Now you say they spread anti- soviet lies but I thought just a minute ago you said this:

"the promotion of "socialism," meaning pretty much what the Soviets meant by it – social-welfare state capitalism, with great inequalities among managers and workers -- the same system that led right back to capitalism everywhere it was tried;"

So which is it, are the Trotskyists trying to criticize and destroy the soviet state or are they supporting it; are the Soviets welfare capitalists or a great communist movement.

This paper has shown you will go to the farthest fringes of hypocrisy to take potshots at Trotsky, even if it means contradicting yourself time after time in the same article.








(Edited by RedComrade at 5:24 am on May 13, 2003)

[canikickit]

Why do people insist on quoting entire articles like that?
Redcomrade, please don't do shit like that, you could just have written "Cassius Clay" in bold, and it would have been quite obvious you were adressing him.

The tone of all the anti-Trotsky articles seems to be "Stalin was better than this bespectacled individualist". They're not particularily interesting.

[kylie]

Trotsky was a brilliant man, a fluent and prolific writer, a powerful public speaker and, until August 1917, a Menshevik.
he had stopped associating himself with the mensheviks long before this, the claim that he was a menshevik is a typical stalinist attempt to smear his name. in fact, he never was truly a menshevik, keeping out of the bolshevik/menshevik conflict. the reason being that he disagreed with elements of both groups. he after 1917 admit though, that where he had been opposing lenin it was in fact lenin who had been correct, as shown by how he from then on stuck closely to the ideas of lenin.
"i was not formally a member of either of the two factions. i continued to work with Krasin(a bolshevik).. at the same time, i kept in touch with the local menshevik group"


(Edited by feoric at 11:41 am on May 13, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

Why must Cassuis clay report other peoples criticism of Trotsky why not read some of Trotsky's major writings then come to an independent conclusion.

[ComradeJunichi]

It's not an article praising Stalin, it's an article about the flaws of Trotsky. Marxist-Leninist, or "Stalinists" if you wish, do not make Stalin a god-like figure (with an exception of Mazdak). Why can't a civilized discussion be held in a Stalin-Trotsky discussion(which isn't even what this is)? Why is it when one thing is said about Trotsky everyone goes wild and flames are brought out? Comrade Cassius does not worship Stalin, just as we don't worship Marx. However, we praise revolutionaries because they are heroes. Heroes to the cause, and when I say praise I don't mean sacrifice ourselves or anything extreme. It's not like [Stalinist] Marxist-Leninists do not criticize Stalin. I'm sure Cassius can bring out some flaws of Stalin, Stalin was not a perfect man.

@feoric: I believe Trotsky was a Menshevik until right before the Bolshevik Revolution, give or take even years.

@Peace:, you post the most articles ever. I don't find anything wrong with that, I found this article an interesting read. It's not just reading Trotsky's major writings but reading about Trotsky's life. No conclusion is independent, in any way conclusions are molded and thought in some sort of bias hence it would be depedent. Reading Trotsky's major writings would aso be dependent would it not?

Comrade Cassius has posted his own criticisms of Trotsky also. Reading from your post, following that logic, why post anything on this board?

[peaccenicked]

ComradeJ
Having an independent viewpoint is about being able to criticise even ones own sources. CassiusClay is merely reporting the old, very old stalinist smear stories on trotsky and subsequent followers. It is full of half truths and complete misrepresentations. It is clear he has read nothing about Trotsky that is independent of his Stalinist sources or has the intellectual wit to criticise Trotsky's works directly. I would like to see that. I would welcome a Marxist critique of Trotsky's work instead of ill researched anti -Trotskyist bile that no one but Stalinists take all that seriously.
How about the History of the Russian Revolution
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...works/1930-hrr/ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/)

[bolshevik1917]

Cassius, last year you were using these old washed up arguments. I recommended you read 'Lenin and Trotsky - what they really stood for' by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, because this was the type of gibberish that they answered once and for all.

As I can see that you havent read the book, I will again recommend that you do so. The book is available online, but me being the nice chap that I am, would be happy to send you my own copy should you be struggling for cash.

Also Joon, Trotsky was never a menshevik, he did side with them sometimes however. Just out of curiosity, do you even know the difference between the bolsheviks and mensheviks? do you know the history of the split? and do you know that as far as ideologies go, Stalin was probibly the best menshevik in history (although I wouldnt be THAT hard on the poor menshys)

PS. Cassius, incase you have forgotten about our discussion on the permanent revolution I got hold of the article you used to quote Lenin, you should be locked up for such a misquotation.

socialism in one country my arse

[redstar2000]

Quote: from Progressive Labor Party on 4:34 pm on May 12, 2003


According to Democratic Centralism, all communists must fight to put the party’s line into practice once it has been decided upon by debate and vote. There is no other way to judge whether the Party’s line is correct or not. For, if all members do not try to put it into effect with all their effort, who can say, in the case of failure, whether the line was incorrect, or whether it was correct but just never carried out?



A nice illustration here. Consider the elements.

1. The line is decided by "debate and vote." Perhaps on the central committee or, more likely, in the politburo. I've never heard of a single instance in the ranks of a Leninist party where a proposal originated among the ordinary members, was debated and approved by the membership, and carried out by the leadership. (!) Somehow, it always seems to work the other way.

2. The "correct line" that fails because the membership declined to implement it was probably not very good to begin with...and, in fact, didn't have the support of the membership, just the leadership.

3. And how are mistakes to be corrected, anyway? After the party goes over the cliff and into the abyss, the leaders (the ones still alive) engage in "self-criticism"...yes, we really fucked up that time, guys. (!) The members who saw problems approaching were prohibited from opening their mouths...much less actually trying to persuade the membership that a change was needed.

Stalinists, Trotskyists and Maoists all act like this in their theory and practice. They all fantasize about commanding proletarian "armies" in victorious revolutions.

They're all full of shit!

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

The words pot and kettle spring to mind Redstar...

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevi1917.

'Locked up' I think that's a slight overexageration, less of course you truly believe in 'Military Discipline' like Mr Trotsky. Did not Lenin say that then? I'm sure you will say that it is not taken in the context of the whole of Lenin's article. Whatever, everything is open to interpretation but what Lenin said was pretty clear, the development of Capitalism is uneven and as such one nation has different circumstances to others. This is reality and this is what you Trots fail to understand, instead you tend to put your faith in the working classes of Britain, France, Germany or America, ignoring other struggle's which are actually far more successful and leading the way for people's liberation (worker, peasant or native) because they are not 'Advanced' enough. This is rascism no. While the PM of France is (Jospan so maybe was) a hardcore Trot and what good did he ever do? Help French workers have a better life because of super-exploitation of the third world?

I would read your book but I don't have the money (literally) and when I did I spent it on something far more productive, Das Kapital. If the book is available online I'll happily raed it. To be honest why I should believe the same people who produced a forgery entitled 'Lenin's fight against Stalinism' written by Lenin himself and produced in 1975 I really don't know.

I gather Mr Grant and Woods had a debate with the CPGB in the 60's and as such wrote the book in circumstances around that debate. The CPGB were revisionist and probably as anti-Stalin as the Trots, today there is no doubt about that. In 1952 with 'The Britist Road to Socialism' became the party's policy, suffice to say the real 'Stalinists' had nothing to do with this betrayal and walked out.

As for 'Socialism in One Country my arse' Mr Trotsky himself admitted Socialism had been established in the USSR. A fact you have a strange habit of ignoring.


Peacenicked these arguments are not 'worn-out'. For years both the Fascist and Capitalist world jave written and supported Trotsky's view of the world (in Fascist Italy all of Stalin and the Soviet Union's works/articles were strictly banned, yet you could find Trotsky's quite easily), now that the truth is known and been proven it's time to expose what Trotsky was and what his ideas were.

I've read Trotsky before and criticised him. When he wants to throw workers into concentration camps for merely turning up late to work, I rightly call that Fascism. Although Lenin descirbed Trots ideas as 'Bonapartism' so perhaps I'll just quote that as 'Another persons' criticism of Trotsky.

And I would like to ask you Peacenicked and Bolshevik how many of Stalin's works you have read?

Cankickit, I don't think the article is trying to simply say 'Stalin was a great guy and Trotsky wasn't'. It's exposing Trotsky's 'Reactionary' ideas and policies, all power to them. The PLP have been very criticical of Stalin before as well as Mao, they also say that the their aim is not to start the whole 'Trot-Stalin debate' again. True there are better and far more detailed works which expose Trots true ideas and motives much better. For that people pary a high price, you know New Democracy/Oren he found out the truth and became pro-Stalin and has exposed Trotsky and now he cant post here because he would probably be banned.

There are a million threads calling Stalin all soughts of names and accusing himof all soughts of thigs. Is any of it backed up by anything? No. Yet I post something which although a bit thin and with a lack of clear sources does atleast have some basis and I'm just a 'Stalinist' repeating 'Old lies'.


Redcomrade perhaps you can answer me why Trotsky only got 6000 votes out of over 725,000 votes cast? In perfectly fair elections, Trotsky and the opposition lost and Stalin and the Bolsheviks won. And while many were calling for Trotsky to be shot, Stalin was a restraining infulence. And can any of you find me a document with a specific order from Stalin to kill Trotsky? No you can't because the the assasin was a Spanish Anarchist with no contact to Soviet authorities what so ever. But Trotsky deserved it none the less, for his crimes against the Spanish workers and peasants by ordering his supporters to act as Franco's spys, for helping the IJA to slaughter peasants. If Trotsky had lived it's likely he would of come to Russia at the front of German panzers. This is why Trotskyism is 'Reactionary' because it has sided with the worst Capitalist criminalls in history. Trotskyism is reactionary because the same people who parie him and his ideas are the same ones who praised the Falklands war and Thatcher.


''Stalinist groups have no chance whatsoever of understanding reality correctly, much less of leading a working-class movement for communism, ''

Tell me what have Trotskyist groups ever done? Have they ever contributed to a revolution or succesfully built the first steps of Socialism anywhere? In Ecuador last December the 'Stalinist' party won the election in coalition with other leftist groups, the people's wars in Asia and parts of South America are pro-Stalin, the new CPSU in the former Soviet Union got over 3 million votes in last election and are taking part in militant workers struggle's against the Capitalists. The RCWP has a series change of winning the election in 2004. The uprising in Albania in 1997 was led by workers who were pro-Stalin. Oh yes and Trots have got a few seats in a parliament which means nothing in Pakistan. It's quite obvious who is more like the Mensheviks.


''Trotsky is remebered as an integral part of the October revolution and a real socialist, Stalin is a caricature of everything that went wrong.''

Does a 'real socialist' want workers thrown into camps for no reason? Oh but because the West sais the above that must mean it's true.

NZ revolution and Eric O first what part of 'Stalinism' failed in either the USSR or China? They fell because of Revisionism, 'Stalinism' set about a society where Captialist relations had been all but eliminated everywhere, in the factory (where workers had the power to fire their own managers and offcials) for example. Socialist relations had been put into practice and a system far more democratic than the west or Trotsky's 'Military discipline' flourished.

But Trotsky said it couldn't happen, the Russians and other people of the Soviet Union were not 'Advanced' or 'Civilised' enough to do it. They supposedly needed the help of other workers, Trotsky went to the Soviet Union's people with these ideas and theory's and they threw him out. Trotsky said the workers could not form a alliance with the peasants, he was proved wrong just as he was about the workers being able to build socialism. Yet even 65 years after Trotsky was proved wrong and the people of the Soviet Union proved right Trotskyites today still say Trotsky was right. So knowing this the PLP are right to say that Trotskyist groups treat 'The Master' unquestionably and as a reliogious text, another example of part of a 'Reactionary' ideology.

[RedComrade]

Wow! I can barely say anything else. Besides skipping over 4/5ths of my response you have made one of the STUPIDEST claims I have ever read. That Trotsky was not assasinated by Stalinist agents. LOL let me guess his 7 secretaries and 4 children were all killed by crazed anarchists too. LOL better yet, we Stalinist pigs are proud to announce that a stunning new revelation has been revealed concerning the death of Non-person Trotsky's secretaries and children, Comrade Stalin and the archives of the Cheka hath shown us that it WAS REALLY TROTSKY! who killed them. LOL you Stalinists are funny, Im sure such a radical re-writing of history would be right up your allie. :

By 1934 his mother’s political influence prevailed and Mercader found himself fighting as a member of the communist forces against Madrid’s Federal Government. He organized the Cervantes Artistic Recreational Circle, a front for a cell of underground communists. On June 12, 1935 Mercader was arrested along with several other members of the group, but in 1936 the Popular Front government took over in Madrid and Mercader was released. By this time Caridad Mercader was back in Barcelona and after leading a successful attack against Franco’s forces in the Catalonian capitol, took charge of the Union of Communist Women. Ramon Mercader, now a lieutenant, became a political commissar in the 27th Division.

Though she had worked indirectly as a Stalinist agent for years via the directives of the Comintern, Caridad Mercader was formally indoctrinated into the NKVD by Leonid Eitingon who operated in Spain under the alias of General Kotov. Caridad had a long running affair with Eitingon,who not only recruited her, but her son Ramon as well. Eitingon trained Mercader in the ways of sabatoge and Guerrilla warfare and in 1937, took him to Moscow for more specialized training in dissembling and assassination.

Eitingon was the mastermind behind the Trotsky assassination, directing it via the Soviet consulate in New York. To get close to Trotsky, it was decided that Mercader would have to become romantically involved with someone who had access to Trotsky’s inner sanctum. The NKVD chose Sylvia Ageloff, a Brooklyn social worker, Trotskyite, and confidante of Trotsky himself. It was assumed that Ageloff would be attending a secret conference of Trotsky’s Fourth International (about which the NKVD had been tipped off) in France in the summer of 1938. The NKVD used Ruby Weil, a wavering Trotskyite and acquaintance of Ageloff, to travel to Europe with Ageloff and set her up with Mercader via an agent by the name of Gertrude.

In Paris, Mercader was posing as Jacques Mornard, a student of journalism at the Sorbonne and son of a Belgian diplomat. "Mornard" swept Ageloff off her feet almost immediately. He was suave, attractive, and romantic. Ageloff had no idea that her beloved "Mornard" was actually a Stalinist ideologue and NKVD assassin working towards a single goal. In fact, "Mornard" showed absolutely no interest in politics what-so-ever. He told Ageloff that he made a living writing sports articles, though she later recalled that he never once attended a sporting event during their time in Paris.

During their time in Europe, "Mornard" frequently took trips, telling Ageloff conflicting and preposterous stories to explain his absences. He refused Ageloff’s requests to meet his parents, claiming they would not accept her. Blinded by love, Ageloff swallowed his absurd stories. In february of 1939, "Mornard" told Ageloff that he had accepted a position in New York as a corespondent for a Belgian newspaper. Ageloff was to leave for New York and "Mornard" would follow in some weeks.

It wasn’t until September that Mercader arrived in New York, this time under a doctored Canadian Passport of a one Frank Jacson (the spelling apparently being a mistake on the behalf of the NKVD forger.) He told Ageloff that he had trouble acquiring a passport because of his failure to complete compulsory military service in Belgium and purchased the fake Canadian documents for $3000. Mercader only spent a month in New York before telling Ageloff that he had secured a position with a British importer in Mexico. He gave her several thousand dollars and told her she should join him in Mexico.

In mid October of 1939, Mercader arrived in Mexico city as Frank Jacson and took up residence in a tourist camp. He received word that Eitingon and Caridad Mercader would soon be arriving in Mexico to coordinate Operation Trotsky. Mercader or "Jacson" as he was now known, bought a used Buick and settled in as he awaited Ageloff.

In January, Ageloff arrived in Mexico. They took up residence in a hotel. "Jacson" told Ageloff that he had an office in Mexico City, but when Ageloff attempted to find it, she discovered the address did not exist. When questioned about the matter, "Jacson" offered that he had accidentally given her the wrong address and gave her a new suite number. Ageloff was suspicious and asked a friend to check out the new address. Ageloff’s friend failed to find "Jacson" in the office, but an office boy did tell her that it was indeed "Jacson’s" office. Whatever remained of Ageloff’s suspicions dissolved and she never again questioned "Jacson’s" business.

While "Jacson" was "working," Ageloff would frequently make visits to Trotsky’s fortified villa in the suburb of Coyoacan. She did not, however, take "Jacson" with her because, as she confessed to Trotsky, she did not want to compromise him. Ageloff did recall, though, that during her first months with him in Mexico, "Jacson" did begin to show more of an interest in politics, particularly those of the Trotskyites. She had no idea that "Jacson" was spending his days with his mother and her NKVD lover, Eitingon.

Though "Jacson" did not accompany Ageloff to the Trotsky villa, the couple did develop a friendship with Alfred and Marguerite Rosmer, the french couple who escorted Trotsky’s orphaned grandson to Mexico after the murder of Trotsky’s son, Lev Sedov, in 1938. The Rosmers were living with the Trotsky’s at the villa in Coyoacan and often engaged in social activities with Ageloff and "Jacson."

Because "Jacson" had a car, the foursome would picnic and take drives, often of great distance. "Jacson" would explain that he had business in some of these areas, areas he claimed to travel to frequently, though he was usually quite unfamiliar with the municipalities when they arrived. When "Jacson" and Ageloff would pick up the Rosmers at Coyoacan, Ageloff would not allow, "Jacson" to enter the compound, citing her caution regarding the founder of the Fourth International.

In March, Ageloff returned to New York, probably to transport documents for Trotsky. Before she left, however, she made "Jacson" promise that he would not visit the Trotsky compound during her absence. "Jacson" agreed, but shortly after Ageloff’s departure, Alfred Rosmer fell ill and asked "Jacson" if he wouldn’t mind ferrying him to the hospital and running errands for Rosmer and his wife while he was incapacitated. This was Mercader’s grand opportunity.

During these visits "Jacson" fostered a congenial relationship with the guards at Coyoacan. After a few visits he was on a first name basis with all of them and was not checked for weapons. Utilizing his photographic memory, "Jacson" made detailed mental notes about the layout, fortifications and staffing of the Coyoacan villa which he later reported to Eitingon.

At this point, the NKVD had no plans of using Mercader as the assassin. His job was solely to gather intelligence for the planning of the assassination. After several weeks of information gathering on Mercader’s behalf, Eitingon felt that the time was right.

Eitingon enlisted David Alfaro Sisqueiros, a Mexican communist and revolutionary painter, to lead an attack on the Trotsky compound. At dawn on May 24, 1940, Sisqueiros took his group to Coyoacan. He had arranged for communists within the local police department to throw a party for the department the previous evening, so the number of officers guarding the outside of the compound was minimal. The attackers parked their cars about a block from Trotsky’s villa and walked to the gate.

The NKVD had spared no expense in outfitting their death squad. Tailors had been hired to make bogus police and army uniforms. They were heavily armed with submachine guns, home-made incendiary devices and two dynamite bombs. The also had an extensive equipment list which included ladders, grapling hooks, and a power saw.

At the compound’s gate Sisqueiros’ band quickly subdued the guards and penetrated the compound. Once inside, they opened fire. They let loose with an estimated 300 rounds, 75 alone were fired into Trotsky’s bedroom, but when Trotsky was awoke by the gunfire, he hit the floor and pulled his wife, Natalia, under the bed with him. Miraculously, they survived the attack unharmed. The attackers made no attempt to enter Trotsky’s quarters, certain that he could not survive the barrage of lead.

The attackers fled, taking one of Trotsky’s guards, an American by the name of Sheldon Harte, with them. Some of the men were later apprehended, but Sisqueiros was not. Harte’s body was found buried in the basement of a house which had been rented by Sisqueiros.

The failed assault forced Eitingon and his superiors in New York and Moscow to re-evaluate the course of Operation Trotsky. A new plan was devised, one in which Mercader would have to achieve an even greater level of penetration, such that he could kill Trotsky himself.

Trotsky would meet "Jacson" for the first time only four days after the failed attempt on his life. "Jacson" had learned that the Rosmers would be departing on May 28 for the United States from Veracruz, some 300 miles from Coyoacan. He did not hesitate to offer them a ride. When "Jacson" arrived at the villa on the morning the 28th, Trotsky was on the porch and introduced himself. Ever the gentleman, Trotsky invited this trusted friend of the Rosmers in for tea. "Jacson" obliged and even gave Trotsky’s grandson a toy glider which he had picked up on the way to the villa. After tea, "Jacson" and the Rosmers, accompanied by Mrs. Trotsky, left for Veracruz.

Natalia Trotsky had decided to go with to bid farewell to the Rosmers and keep "Jacson" company on the way back. "Jacson" took advantage of this opportunity to cultivate a friendship with Mrs. Trotsky.

On June 12, "Jacson" arrived at the Trotsky compound to tell Trotsky and his wife that he would be leaving for New York on business and that they may have use of his Buick if he might store it there. They were happy to have the extra vehicle at their disposal and wished "Jacson" a pleasant journey.

Mercader evidently returned to New York to confer with Eitingon, who had evacuated the country immediately following the May 24 fiasco. Mercader stayed at the NKDV residency in the Soviet Consulate General’s compound and Ageloff, who was still in New York, was unaware he was in the city.

On July 29, "Jacson" showed up unexpectedly at the Trotsky villa to pick up his car. He stayed there for a little more than an hour. When asked if he had visited the headquarters of the American Trotskyite movement while in New York, he replied he had not, explaining that he had been to busy. This failure to conduct an obvious pilgrimage bewildered the guards at the villa and Trotsky confessed to his wife later, that he felt "Jacson" was "a little light-minded."

"Jacson" visited the villa five times in the next three weeks. On August 10, "Jacson" and Ageloff had tea with the Trotsky’s. During this visit, "Jacson" asked Trotsky if he would mind reading an article he had been working on. Though Trotsky felt "Jacson’s" political mind was somewhat undeveloped, he agreed to examine his article. A week later, "Jacson" arrived for his appointment with Trotsky. Trotsky received "Jacson" alone in his study, as was customary for business calls. The visit lasted only eleven minutes. Trotsky felt the article was simplistic and offered "Jacson" some suggestions. "Jacson" said he would return with a revised version and Trotsky agreed. Later he complained to his wife that "Jacson’s" behavior had offended him. He didn’t remove his hat and he sat on the edge of Trotsky’s desk.

By now the means of Trotsky’s demise had been decided upon. Mercader, who was an expert alpinist, purchased a piolet or ice-axe. One swift blow to the back of the head should be enough to dispatch Trotsky. This was, in fact, a favored method of the NKVD. It had been used before. It was quiet and should allow Mercader to get out of the compound before anyone realized something was amiss.

At 5:20 p.m. on Tuesday, August 20, "Jacson" checked into the Trotsky compound for the last time. Caridad Mercader waited in a getaway car a few blocks away, Eitingon in another car further down the road. "Jacson" had a raincoat folded over his arm and under it lay the piolet. Concealed in his jacket was a large dagger, and .45 caliber pistol was stuffed in his boot. He also carried a letter in which he "confessed" that he had been a follower of Trotsky, who had been ordered by the latter to kill Stalin, but had recoiled from the prospect and decided to eliminate Trotsky instead.

"Jacson" proceeded to Trotsky’s study, and as he expected, found him alone. Pleasantries were exchanged and "Jacson" gave Trotsky his revised article. Trotsky sat down at his desk and began to read. "Jacson" took the piolet in his hand, raised it, and brought it down on Trotsky’s skull. The blow, however, was not enough to kill Trotsky instantly. As he fell to the floor he let out a terrible shriek, one which Mercader said he would "hear forever."

Within moments guards rushed into the study and began to beat "Jacson." He may not have lived to tell the tale if it were not for his victim, Trotsky, who, a historian to his final day, yelled, "Do not kill him. This man has a story to tell."

Sensing something was wrong, Caridad Mercader and Eitingon Fled.

Trotsky was rushed to the Green Cross Emergency Hospital where, despite his massive head trauma, he remained conscious for several hours, only to die 24 hours after the attack.

Lemme guess though thats all a big capitalist lie? You Stalinists sound like you need to go to the looney bin, "I swear comrade Stalin didnt do it !, honest I swear he didnt ! nooooooooooo!!!"

It was Stalin not Trotsky who had the NKVD send people to 10 year stints in the gulag when they grew there own private plots of food, showed up late to work, or were caught keeping enough of their own grain to survive.



On what is perhaps an even stupider note you claim it was Trotsky not Stalin who was the friend of Fascism. Lets take a look back at history... While Trotsky was writing pamphlets like "What is Fascism and How to Fight It" Josef Stalin was signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Who was the fascist again?

How dare you speak of Comrade Trotsky betraying the just cause of the Spanish Civil War! It was the Soviet Unions continual focus on eradicating the anarchists and trotskyists within the anti-Franco movement which would deal one of the bigger blows to the resistance. The whole time Trotsky fought the war of the pen, praising and recruiting for the fight against Franco, thousands of Trotskyists including George Orwell signed up to fight in the international brigades.

Oh and thats why the new Stalinist Communist party of Russia is the largest party in the Duma yet they continue to privatize the Russian economy, serving it on a silver platter to the multi-national capitalist who look on with drooling mouths at Russias industrialized workforce ripe for exploitation. Here something Trotsky did for the Soviet Union, secured its existence! If it wasnt for Trotsky brillant military leadership and diplomacy The October Revolution may have ended before it began either with a German assault or from the White Russian pigs.

Yeah there you go lying again saying Trotsky was against an alliance of the peasants and the workers, this is straight from a Trotskyist site:

"3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie"

Whats this? Stalinist involved in a popular coalition? I thought it was the dirty Trots who were the revisionists that supported united fronts (a claim I proved wrong in the post you never responded to)??

So much hypocrisy, idiocy, and hate. Give it up Stalinist or at least adress my first post.

[Cassius Clay]

'Redcomrade' as far as I'm concerned I refuted everyone of your arguments against Stalin in the thread 'An American of Josef Stalin' in the Opposing Ideologies forum. There you showed what a little reactionary Fascist you are and that thread shows how reactionary you Trots are. This thread is a criticism of 'Trotskyism' not of Stalin, although I will happily respond to everything if you insist.

[RedComrade]

And I refuted that attack on Trotskyism, I do indeed "insist" defend your paper. Explain all the wholes I poked in it.

[Cassius Clay]

''Wow! I can barely say anything else. Besides skipping over 4/5ths of my response you have made one of the STUPIDEST claims I have ever read.''

Did you respond to any of the points made in the PLP article, have you responded to any of the questions I asked you? No you haven't so stop moaning and grow up and start coming up with a coherent post for once.


''That Trotsky was not assasinated by Stalinist agents. LOL let me guess his 7 secretaries and 4 children were all killed by crazed anarchists too. LOL better yet, we Stalinist pigs are proud to announce that a stunning new revelation has been revealed concerning the death of Non-person Trotsky's secretaries and children, Comrade Stalin and the archives of the Cheka hath shown us that it WAS REALLY TROTSKY! who killed them. LOL you Stalinists are funny, Im sure such a radical re-writing of history would be right up your allie. :

By 1934 his mother’s political influence prevailed and Mercader found himself fighting as a member of the communist forces against Madrid’s Federal Government. He organized the Cervantes Artistic Recreational Circle, a front for a cell of underground communists. On June 12, 1935 Mercader was arrested along with several other members of the group, but in 1936 the Popular Front government took over in Madrid and Mercader was released. By this time Caridad Mercader was back in Barcelona and after leading a successful attack against Franco’s forces in the Catalonian capitol, took charge of the Union of Communist Women. Ramon Mercader, now a lieutenant, became a political commissar in the 27th Division.

Though she had worked indirectly as a Stalinist agent for years via the directives of the Comintern, Caridad Mercader was formally indoctrinated into the NKVD by Leonid Eitingon who operated in Spain under the alias of General Kotov. Caridad had a long running affair with Eitingon,who not only recruited her, but her son Ramon as well. Eitingon trained Mercader in the ways of sabatoge and Guerrilla warfare and in 1937, took him to Moscow for more specialized training in dissembling and assassination.

Eitingon was the mastermind behind the Trotsky assassination, directing it via the Soviet consulate in New York. To get close to Trotsky, it was decided that Mercader would have to become romantically involved with someone who had access to Trotsky’s inner sanctum. The NKVD chose Sylvia Ageloff, a Brooklyn social worker, Trotskyite, and confidante of Trotsky himself. It was assumed that Ageloff would be attending a secret conference of Trotsky’s Fourth International (about which the NKVD had been tipped off) in France in the summer of 1938. The NKVD used Ruby Weil, a wavering Trotskyite and acquaintance of Ageloff, to travel to Europe with Ageloff and set her up with Mercader via an agent by the name of Gertrude.

In Paris, Mercader was posing as Jacques Mornard, a student of journalism at the Sorbonne and son of a Belgian diplomat. "Mornard" swept Ageloff off her feet almost immediately. He was suave, attractive, and romantic. Ageloff had no idea that her beloved "Mornard" was actually a Stalinist ideologue and NKVD assassin working towards a single goal. In fact, "Mornard" showed absolutely no interest in politics what-so-ever. He told Ageloff that he made a living writing sports articles, though she later recalled that he never once attended a sporting event during their time in Paris.

During their time in Europe, "Mornard" frequently took trips, telling Ageloff conflicting and preposterous stories to explain his absences. He refused Ageloff’s requests to meet his parents, claiming they would not accept her. Blinded by love, Ageloff swallowed his absurd stories. In february of 1939, "Mornard" told Ageloff that he had accepted a position in New York as a corespondent for a Belgian newspaper. Ageloff was to leave for New York and "Mornard" would follow in some weeks.

It wasn’t until September that Mercader arrived in New York, this time under a doctored Canadian Passport of a one Frank Jacson (the spelling apparently being a mistake on the behalf of the NKVD forger.) He told Ageloff that he had trouble acquiring a passport because of his failure to complete compulsory military service in Belgium and purchased the fake Canadian documents for $3000. Mercader only spent a month in New York before telling Ageloff that he had secured a position with a British importer in Mexico. He gave her several thousand dollars and told her she should join him in Mexico.

In mid October of 1939, Mercader arrived in Mexico city as Frank Jacson and took up residence in a tourist camp. He received word that Eitingon and Caridad Mercader would soon be arriving in Mexico to coordinate Operation Trotsky. Mercader or "Jacson" as he was now known, bought a used Buick and settled in as he awaited Ageloff.

In January, Ageloff arrived in Mexico. They took up residence in a hotel. "Jacson" told Ageloff that he had an office in Mexico City, but when Ageloff attempted to find it, she discovered the address did not exist. When questioned about the matter, "Jacson" offered that he had accidentally given her the wrong address and gave her a new suite number. Ageloff was suspicious and asked a friend to check out the new address. Ageloff’s friend failed to find "Jacson" in the office, but an office boy did tell her that it was indeed "Jacson’s" office. Whatever remained of Ageloff’s suspicions dissolved and she never again questioned "Jacson’s" business.

While "Jacson" was "working," Ageloff would frequently make visits to Trotsky’s fortified villa in the suburb of Coyoacan. She did not, however, take "Jacson" with her because, as she confessed to Trotsky, she did not want to compromise him. Ageloff did recall, though, that during her first months with him in Mexico, "Jacson" did begin to show more of an interest in politics, particularly those of the Trotskyites. She had no idea that "Jacson" was spending his days with his mother and her NKVD lover, Eitingon.

Though "Jacson" did not accompany Ageloff to the Trotsky villa, the couple did develop a friendship with Alfred and Marguerite Rosmer, the french couple who escorted Trotsky’s orphaned grandson to Mexico after the murder of Trotsky’s son, Lev Sedov, in 1938. The Rosmers were living with the Trotsky’s at the villa in Coyoacan and often engaged in social activities with Ageloff and "Jacson."

Because "Jacson" had a car, the foursome would picnic and take drives, often of great distance. "Jacson" would explain that he had business in some of these areas, areas he claimed to travel to frequently, though he was usually quite unfamiliar with the municipalities when they arrived. When "Jacson" and Ageloff would pick up the Rosmers at Coyoacan, Ageloff would not allow, "Jacson" to enter the compound, citing her caution regarding the founder of the Fourth International.

In March, Ageloff returned to New York, probably to transport documents for Trotsky. Before she left, however, she made "Jacson" promise that he would not visit the Trotsky compound during her absence. "Jacson" agreed, but shortly after Ageloff’s departure, Alfred Rosmer fell ill and asked "Jacson" if he wouldn’t mind ferrying him to the hospital and running errands for Rosmer and his wife while he was incapacitated. This was Mercader’s grand opportunity.

During these visits "Jacson" fostered a congenial relationship with the guards at Coyoacan. After a few visits he was on a first name basis with all of them and was not checked for weapons. Utilizing his photographic memory, "Jacson" made detailed mental notes about the layout, fortifications and staffing of the Coyoacan villa which he later reported to Eitingon.

At this point, the NKVD had no plans of using Mercader as the assassin. His job was solely to gather intelligence for the planning of the assassination. After several weeks of information gathering on Mercader’s behalf, Eitingon felt that the time was right.

Eitingon enlisted David Alfaro Sisqueiros, a Mexican communist and revolutionary painter, to lead an attack on the Trotsky compound. At dawn on May 24, 1940, Sisqueiros took his group to Coyoacan. He had arranged for communists within the local police department to throw a party for the department the previous evening, so the number of officers guarding the outside of the compound was minimal. The attackers parked their cars about a block from Trotsky’s villa and walked to the gate.

The NKVD had spared no expense in outfitting their death squad. Tailors had been hired to make bogus police and army uniforms. They were heavily armed with submachine guns, home-made incendiary devices and two dynamite bombs. The also had an extensive equipment list which included ladders, grapling hooks, and a power saw.

At the compound’s gate Sisqueiros’ band quickly subdued the guards and penetrated the compound. Once inside, they opened fire. They let loose with an estimated 300 rounds, 75 alone were fired into Trotsky’s bedroom, but when Trotsky was awoke by the gunfire, he hit the floor and pulled his wife, Natalia, under the bed with him. Miraculously, they survived the attack unharmed. The attackers made no attempt to enter Trotsky’s quarters, certain that he could not survive the barrage of lead.

The attackers fled, taking one of Trotsky’s guards, an American by the name of Sheldon Harte, with them. Some of the men were later apprehended, but Sisqueiros was not. Harte’s body was found buried in the basement of a house which had been rented by Sisqueiros.

The failed assault forced Eitingon and his superiors in New York and Moscow to re-evaluate the course of Operation Trotsky. A new plan was devised, one in which Mercader would have to achieve an even greater level of penetration, such that he could kill Trotsky himself.

Trotsky would meet "Jacson" for the first time only four days after the failed attempt on his life. "Jacson" had learned that the Rosmers would be departing on May 28 for the United States from Veracruz, some 300 miles from Coyoacan. He did not hesitate to offer them a ride. When "Jacson" arrived at the villa on the morning the 28th, Trotsky was on the porch and introduced himself. Ever the gentleman, Trotsky invited this trusted friend of the Rosmers in for tea. "Jacson" obliged and even gave Trotsky’s grandson a toy glider which he had picked up on the way to the villa. After tea, "Jacson" and the Rosmers, accompanied by Mrs. Trotsky, left for Veracruz.

Natalia Trotsky had decided to go with to bid farewell to the Rosmers and keep "Jacson" company on the way back. "Jacson" took advantage of this opportunity to cultivate a friendship with Mrs. Trotsky.

On June 12, "Jacson" arrived at the Trotsky compound to tell Trotsky and his wife that he would be leaving for New York on business and that they may have use of his Buick if he might store it there. They were happy to have the extra vehicle at their disposal and wished "Jacson" a pleasant journey.

Mercader evidently returned to New York to confer with Eitingon, who had evacuated the country immediately following the May 24 fiasco. Mercader stayed at the NKDV residency in the Soviet Consulate General’s compound and Ageloff, who was still in New York, was unaware he was in the city.

On July 29, "Jacson" showed up unexpectedly at the Trotsky villa to pick up his car. He stayed there for a little more than an hour. When asked if he had visited the headquarters of the American Trotskyite movement while in New York, he replied he had not, explaining that he had been to busy. This failure to conduct an obvious pilgrimage bewildered the guards at the villa and Trotsky confessed to his wife later, that he felt "Jacson" was "a little light-minded."

"Jacson" visited the villa five times in the next three weeks. On August 10, "Jacson" and Ageloff had tea with the Trotsky’s. During this visit, "Jacson" asked Trotsky if he would mind reading an article he had been working on. Though Trotsky felt "Jacson’s" political mind was somewhat undeveloped, he agreed to examine his article. A week later, "Jacson" arrived for his appointment with Trotsky. Trotsky received "Jacson" alone in his study, as was customary for business calls. The visit lasted only eleven minutes. Trotsky felt the article was simplistic and offered "Jacson" some suggestions. "Jacson" said he would return with a revised version and Trotsky agreed. Later he complained to his wife that "Jacson’s" behavior had offended him. He didn’t remove his hat and he sat on the edge of Trotsky’s desk.

By now the means of Trotsky’s demise had been decided upon. Mercader, who was an expert alpinist, purchased a piolet or ice-axe. One swift blow to the back of the head should be enough to dispatch Trotsky. This was, in fact, a favored method of the NKVD. It had been used before. It was quiet and should allow Mercader to get out of the compound before anyone realized something was amiss.

At 5:20 p.m. on Tuesday, August 20, "Jacson" checked into the Trotsky compound for the last time. Caridad Mercader waited in a getaway car a few blocks away, Eitingon in another car further down the road. "Jacson" had a raincoat folded over his arm and under it lay the piolet. Concealed in his jacket was a large dagger, and .45 caliber pistol was stuffed in his boot. He also carried a letter in which he "confessed" that he had been a follower of Trotsky, who had been ordered by the latter to kill Stalin, but had recoiled from the prospect and decided to eliminate Trotsky instead.

"Jacson" proceeded to Trotsky’s study, and as he expected, found him alone. Pleasantries were exchanged and "Jacson" gave Trotsky his revised article. Trotsky sat down at his desk and began to read. "Jacson" took the piolet in his hand, raised it, and brought it down on Trotsky’s skull. The blow, however, was not enough to kill Trotsky instantly. As he fell to the floor he let out a terrible shriek, one which Mercader said he would "hear forever."

Within moments guards rushed into the study and began to beat "Jacson." He may not have lived to tell the tale if it were not for his victim, Trotsky, who, a historian to his final day, yelled, "Do not kill him. This man has a story to tell."

Sensing something was wrong, Caridad Mercader and Eitingon Fled.

Trotsky was rushed to the Green Cross Emergency Hospital where, despite his massive head trauma, he remained conscious for several hours, only to die 24 hours after the attack.''

That's a great story but unfournatly that's all it is. I asked for a document by Stalin ordering the murder of Trotsky, I don't see one here. All it does is go into worn out detail of how the murder pacificly was carried out, paranoia equal to that of the McCarthy era in terms of those evil people at the 'NKVD' being 'Tipped of' about everything, not to say that the whole idea that someone 'Tipped of' the NkVD about a meeting of the 'Fourth International' is so ludicrous it really shows the article is just wron out Trotskyite rhectoric.


''Lemme guess though thats all a big capitalist lie? You Stalinists sound like you need to go to the looney bin, "I swear comrade Stalin didnt do it !, honest I swear he didnt ! nooooooooooo!!!"

What kind of a argument is that, I will happilly accept I'm wrong on this matter since I jumped to a conclusion with only one source to back what I said up. But you've yet to show any real evidence so I will stick by it.

http://www.communistleague.org.uk/

''It was Stalin not Trotsky who had the NKVD send people to 10 year stints in the gulag when they grew there own private plots of food, showed up late to work, or were caught keeping enough of their own grain to survive.''

Really. Is this because the Nazi Press sais this? I've proven this to be rubbish enough times and I'm not going to do it again.


''On what is perhaps an even stupider note you claim it was Trotsky not Stalin who was the friend of Fascism. Lets take a look back at history... While Trotsky was writing pamphlets like "What is Fascism and How to Fight It" Josef Stalin was signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Who was the fascist again?''

Have you not heard of Georgie Dmitrov and the policy put into practice in Spain and China for example? The Comintern was fighting Fascism all the time and routinly the Soviet Union had called for a United front to oppose Nazi Germany. Who was the only nation to offer aid to the Czech people in their fight against Fascism? The Soviet Union, while Trotsky was ordering his supporters to slaughter Chinese peasants and act as Franco's spys. These are the Facts and not one of you Trots has responded to them. What did the pact do? Made sure that instead of the Capitalists uniting to fight the Soviet Union they fought eachother. Oh the Horror. It also gave the USSR time to develop weapons such as the T-34 and modernise the army. The Fascist is the one who wants to throw workers into camps for no good reason.


''How dare you speak of Comrade Trotsky betraying the just cause of the Spanish Civil War! It was the Soviet Unions continual focus on eradicating the anarchists and trotskyists within the anti-Franco movement which would deal one of the bigger blows to the resistance. The whole time Trotsky fought the war of the pen, praising and recruiting for the fight against Franco, thousands of Trotskyists including George Orwell signed up to fight in the international brigades.''

That maybe the case but why did the Trots feel the need to become allies of Franco and Hitler? Oh yes because of the 'Evil Stalinists'. Those same people who 'Sabotaged' the revolution delibaretly yet gave the Republic

''direct military assistance included 15,113
machine guns, 500.000 rifles, 340 mortars, over 110,000 bombs,
3.400.000 shells, 862,000 rounds of ammunition and 500.000 grenades''.

And the Comintern parties around the world provided far more men and women to fight Fascism than any Trots did. Those same parties whom Trotsky wanted destroyed. Hmm a bit like Hitler or Churchill. Two reactionaries, my for a Marxist revolutionary Trotsky sure does have alot of friends in the establishment.


''Oh and thats why the new Stalinist Communist party of Russia is the largest party in the Duma yet they continue to privatize the Russian economy, serving it on a silver platter to the multi-national capitalist who look on with drooling mouths at Russias industrialized workforce ripe for exploitation.''

LOL, are you delibaretly being stupid. That's the KPRF (whom 'Bolshevik1917' favorite comrades Mr Woods and Grant enjoy marching with), they are Revisionists and more like social-democrats. Do NOT try and come up with stuff even you must know to be rubbish, especially when I didn't even mention the KPRF, I mentioned other parties who are making a difference yet you ignore them and the other examples I gave.

''Here something Trotsky did for the Soviet Union, secured its existence! If it wasnt for Trotsky brillant military leadership and diplomacy The October Revolution may have ended before it began either with a German assault or from the White Russian pigs.''

Trotsky wanted a policy of 'No War-No peace' it was only because Lenin was against such ultra-leftism that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. If Trotsky had had his way the Soviet Union would of as you said ended with a 'German assualt'. Trotsky did nothing spectaculor, he was replaced by Marshall Frunze because he and his Tsarist goons kept on messing up and kept on disagreeing with the Central Committe not to mention in Lenin's own words 'undermining' the whole regime through his 'Bonapartist' tactics. Stalin also won the highest military medal yet I hear no one screaming about that. Because of Trotsky's 'Flair for publicity' and with the help on the Capitalist west this is ignored and Trotsky's role is greatly over hyped.


''Yeah there you go lying again saying Trotsky was against an alliance of the peasants and the workers, this is straight from a Trotskyist site:

"3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie"

Are you blind? Trotsky here is speaking of the 'Democratic' revolution that overthows Fuedalism. No where does he mention Socialism. Not anywhere, but I'm well aware he described peasants as representing 'Political Barbarism'. It's well known Trotsky was against it and was proved wrong.


''Whats this? Stalinist involved in a popular coalition? I thought it was the dirty Trots who were the revisionists that supported united fronts (a claim I proved wrong in the post you never responded to)??''

'A popular coalition' to describe the alliance of workers and peasants? You clearly don't know what your talking about, and are resorting to desperate arguments. And when did I say I agree completly with the PLP? No where, infact in the 30's Trots completly opposed any united front against Fascism. Except of course when blaming Stalin for the KPD not uniting with the SPD, ignoring the fact it was Dmitrov who was head of the Comintern and that the SPD were only too happy to unite with the Nazis in locking up KPD members and giving Hitler dictator power.


''So much hypocrisy, idiocy, and hate. Give it up Stalinist or at least adress my first post.''

Coming from a little fascist like yourself this is just stupid. Dare I say if you were a supporter of Stalin (god forbid) you would of been banned by now or atleast rightly accussed of spamming. But if it makes you happy.



''What a crock of shit Stalinist pig!

And educated begining atleast.


''Your honestly telling me that "Trotskyist" groups treat Trotsky with anymore reverance then exclusively Leninist groups treat Lenin or even funnier exclusively Stalinist groups treat Stalin?''

That's precisly what I'm telling you. ''Yet even 65 years after Trotsky was proved wrong and the people of the Soviet Union proved right Trotskyites today still say Trotsky was right. So knowing this the PLP are right to say that Trotskyist groups treat 'The Master' unquestionably and as a reliogious text, another example of part of a 'Reactionary' ideology.''




''Even many Marxist groups have frozen Marx's ideas in the rigid unnadaptable dogma that comes with the cult of leadership. The facts are Trotsky and the Trotskyist movement is no more embrasive of the cult of leadership then Stalinists are, and you know it. The rest of that paragraph is ridiculous and is based soley on opinions. It does however offer a telling insight into the Stalinist mindset which sees anything contradictory to the Stalinist line as "anti-communist" revealing the dogmatic, closeminded, revisionist attitude held by most Stalinists.''

There is no 'Cult' among 'Stalinists' groups for Stalin, Stalin fought against the 'cult' and in that article the PLP clearly states that nobody is beyond criticism. Stalin is rightly criticised for many of his mistakes by true Marxists. The same cannot be said about you Trots. You call 'Stalinists' 'Revisionists' yet do you even know what that word means? Most of your post is rhectoric, and little else. Infact it's worse than that, it's childish rhectoric.

''The articles joking nature is exemplified by the following paragraphs. It goes from mentioning Trotsky's devosion to expanding revolution (the authentic Marxist line might I add, contradictory to the revisionism of "Socialism in one country" to saying that this somehow meant he thought capitalism had a progressive role to play in Russia.''

Yes because Stalin was the first one to come up with 'Socialism in one country' wasn't he? Sigh. I think the point the PLP is making is that Trotsky thought that Socialism couldn't be established, so therefor 'Capitalism' was progressive in Russia according to Trotsky's thoughts. Also as I've pointed out a million times before, the USSR did export revolution everywhere from Berlin to Korea. You only have to read Stalin's letters to Molotov on the British General Strike in 1926 to see he supported revolution, or his talks with Mao or Italian Communists and Spain where the Soviet Union gave huge amounts of aid. All this was done while Socialism was being built in the Soviet Union, something Trotsky said couldn't be done. He was proved wrong.


''What a joke, not to mention this contradictory to what you yourself had argued in the past. Just months ago werent you saying Trotsky was embracing fanatical anti-capitalism which was in the end harmful. One minute you argue that Trotsky took much to swift and harsh of an approach to transforming Russia and the next minute you claim he took a capitalist approach in which he thought "capitalism had a progressive role for Russia".''

Have you not heard of the NEP? It was neccassary given the geopolitics of the day and Marxist ideology that the Soviet Union go through some sought of 'Capitalist' stage. I never claimed that Trotsky was 'anti-Capitalist' indeed the opposite is true. And once again I don't speak for the PLP or they for me. The point they are making is that Trotsky thought that without the 'Advanced' workers in the west having a revolution socialism could not work in the Soviet Union so according to Trotsky only 'Capitalism' could.


''Tell me hypocrite which one is it? If Trotsky was towing the true Marxist line (not marxist-leninist but marxist) he would probably have said capitalism had a progressive role to play, but he didnt.''

I cant tell you because I never said that and you've misquoted and taken out of context what the PLP said. I'll have to point out once again that the NEP ('semi-capitalist') did play a progressive role for a short time. But here you've clearly shown yourself admitting that Trotsky did not follow a Marxist line. But I'll be fair and point out that Marx to begin with thought that Revolutions would occur in Germany of England (although in his later days he did see the potential of Russia) eg Capitalism had no progressive role to play there.


''Untouched Marxism is founded on the beleif that feudal socities must first go through a period of capitalism before they can make a sucessful transformation to socialism, so indeed if Trotsky really had said capitalism had a progressive role to play in Feudal Russia he would have be towing a non-revisionist line, he did not say that however and was even farther left of Lenin.''

Good ending, Trotsky was so 'Ultra-left' he went on to become a ally of the extreme right. Anyway I would actually agree with this as shown by my replys above except the first part about 'Untouched Marxism' which I
addressed directly above. All Marx did was point out the history progresses through stages, Fuedalism being one of them.

''The article then jumps on to clear up any doubts we may have had about its fanatically Stalinist nature. It openly proclaims that good Bolshviks towed the party line which is defined strictly as the Stalinist/Revisionist theory of Socialism in one country. This has got to be one of the most distorted and blatantly Stalinist lies I've ever read. Trotsky was expelled from the Politburo because he was a threat, a threat to the murderous bureacry perpetuated by one of the most evil men who ever lived, Josef Stalin. Trotskys continual exposure of Stalinist lies and revisionism was what ultimately led to their extermination.''

You've yet to tell me why Trotsky got less than 6000 votes in perfectly fair elections?

"An astonishing measure of freedom of debate, criticism and assembly was granted to the Trotskyist oppositionists by the Soviet government… The social and economic policies of the Stalin administration were subjected to continuous criticism… No attempt was made to suppress Trotsky's agitation until it had openly exposed itself as, in fact, anti-Soviet and connected with other anti-Soviet forces."

No 'Stalinist Oppression' here, so can any of you Trots answer me why Trotsky was so unopoular. And if he so bothered about 'Democracy' why he didn't accept the people's will instead of allying with Fascism to overthrow the government in the Soviet Union? your whole post there is something like the Reich's propaganda ministry, infact they would probably be proud. And in Trotsky's own words he enjoyed the time of his life when he was put into exile, after he had lost the election and started calling for the overthrow of 'Soviet Authority'.


''This is hypocrisy at its finest. On one level it criticizes Trotskyists to adhering to a 60 year old doctrine which never changes but then they go right back on to criticize Trotsky for not being glued to the doctrines of Marx and call him revisionist.''

Oh God. It was precisly because Trotsky refused to adapt to the circumstances and was 'glued' to what he thought was Marxism that he was criticised and proven wrong. He's not called a 'Revisionist' for this. I've addressed this allready and it's quite clear Trots refuse to budge on any of Trotsky's writings, ideology, etc, etc.

''Why is a person who adheres to Trotsky a close-minded dogmatist but someone who doesnt adhere word for word to Marx a traitorous revisionist. Why is it bad to adhere to one ideology but then a horrible unforgivable "anti-communist" sin to change ones approach to another mans doctrine?''

Sigh, you are making up stuff now. The PLP have openly said that Marx was wrong on some things. I've allready expalined why I think Trots are 'Close minded'. Here you are simply defending something which no one has actually attacked you for.

That's the first sign of madness, go and see a doctor about it.

''Then to expand on its hypocrisy the article goes on to praise the maxim of "Criticize Everything!" when in the previous paragraph it attacks Trotsky for his justified criticism of the "socialism in one country" theory.''

No it doesn't it says that no one is beyond criticism and judging from your posts 'everyone' would NOT include Trotsky. It was fine for Trotsky to make a criticism of Stalin's policies, he went to the people, the workers and the party with his criticisms and they didn't agree. So he resorted to allying with Fascism in order to get his way.

''Which one are you going to stick with marx who says criticize everything or Stalinist "democratic" centralism which proclaims that once the group of hand picked loyalists decides something it is counter productive and wrong to question it any more?''

'Hand picked loyalists' is this why over 47% of those 'hand picked loyalists' were thrown out in elections held in 1937? You've merely invented something here, based on what you think Soviet society was like according to Trotsky. Stalin and Zhadnov in particular worked especially hard to make sure workers were not silenced and could criticise officials. I'm not going to chose between Marx and 'Stalinist Democratic centralism' because they are one and the same.

''Stalinist groups have no chance whatsoever of understanding reality correctly, much less of leading a working-class movement for communism, because they are devoted to an idealist, religion-like reverence of Democratic Centralism and Stalinism which prevents the initial decision of the group from ever being amended or questioned.''

I've allready addressed every single one of these points. Your not in touch with reality, I've given you half a dozen examples of where 'Stalinists' are currently leading struggles throughout the world and there are dozens of examples throughout the last century. What have Trots produced? Smashing up McDonalds once a year and designing neat web pages.

''You mean his will to embrace one of the pillars of Communism as laid out by Marx and Engels which is the formation of labor armies? If you claim this measure is out of touch you must condemn Marx and Engels not Trotsky because it was they who originally had that idea.''

No it wasn't. I showed you two quotes from Trotsky on his plans for 'Labor Armies' and I challenged you to find something similar in the works of Marx or Engels. You didn't. Lenin correctly declared those ideas as 'Bonapartism'. By supporting such ideas you show yourself for the reactionary ideology you belong to, 'Trotskyism'.

''Might I also remind you that both of those individuals were never once working class yet they still form the pillars of our movement, they were both intellectuals.''

What's your point here? Anyway Marx lived in virtual poverty for his life and Engels was a factory owner. Where I'm sure if he had liked Trotsky's 'Military Discipline' he would of acted like most bosses in that era. Not play a key part in creating a ideology aimed at working class liberation.

''More hypocrisy above you had said that he never ceased the political struggle for his ideals and then you say he was removed from it, this paper is so full of holes... More hypocrisy first you bash Trotskyist for there foolish ways of not abandoning or adapting an ideology 60 years old and then you go on to say the only way to truly perceive reality is a devotion to Marxism which is even older then that.''

Once again the PLP have said that they disagree with some aspects of Marx's ideas. Whether that is right or wrong it makes it clear there is NO HYPRCROSY here.

''On one level you say question everything and then the next minute you say only throught thourough devotion to our Stalinst bull shit can lead to true reality, what garbage. Maoism for good or bad is also a deviation from orthodox marxism which states that a communist revolution will come from the industrial workers, yet another example of your hypocrisy, embracing revisionism here, rejecting it there.''

There is 'No on the other hand' in regard to Stalin. Read the article and my previous reply's. Your just repeating yourself. Once again by saying 'Only Industrial workers can have a revolution' you show yourself for the typhical brainwash Trot you are. Your repeating a argument 70 years after you were proved wrong.

''Oh and another note it was Stalin who almost doomed the Chinese communist movement when he continued to support the republic and push for a peaceful settlement even after the May massacres which Trotsky not Stalin strongly criticized.''

Well Mao remained pro-Stalin until his dying day. China was going through a 'Democratic' revolution at that time, as such the Communists allied with whom they thought were progressives in the Nationalist movement. Yes mistakes were made, but the correspondance between Mao and Stalin clearly shows that Stalin was fully in favor of a revolution. 'Continue your Glourious war of Liberation'.

''If my memory serves me correctly it was Stalin not Trotsky who had his opponent hunted to the ends of the Earth and butchered. If I recall correctly it was Stalin not Trotsky who would write off purge after purge as a response to "trotskyist conspiracies and sabotage". Any git with half a brain can see it was Stalin who villified, persecuted, and demonized the other to a greater extent.''

'Trotskyist conspiracies and sabotage' which I have proven on this board a million times to of been true. Stalin was a restraining infulence, he was actually booed because he had admitted making mistakes in not being hard enough on Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stalin would not 'write of purge after purge', he didn't have that sought of power. Only the Supreme Soviet Court could approve executions, and they didn't give a dam what Stalin thought.

''OH MY FUCKING GOD ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????????????????????????????????? That is why the interrogators in those trials have come forth and publically admitted they used torture and threats to extract those confessions!''

Erm no they didn't. Please provide some evidence to back up this claim. From all the hundreds of people involved in those trials not one came forward saying what you alledge above. Not even in Khruschev's time when everything anti-Stalin was welcomed did this happen. All the testimony from those at the trial completly contradicts what you said. But let me guess they were just 'Stalinists' and your testimony is more reliable?

''Ive seen your evidence to the links between Trotsky and Japan and they consist of one Trotskyist in Asia dealing with the Japanese as if Trotsky was some super-human God who knew of all of his thousands of followers actions and somehow had something to do with one of thousands actions, keep dreaming your evidence wouldnt have even stood up in a Moscow show trial.''

It was more than 'One' Trotskyite. And you may of had a point if it wasn't for that direct link of a telegram between the Japanese government and Trotsky in Mexico approving of such actions. And why did he not condone such activities? Surely then his supporters would of stopped.

''You even go on to admit Trotsky and others were not public at their trials, what hypocrist what foolishness. I cant help but beleive this paper is some kind of sick joke put out their by the friends of the Iraqi info minister.''

Belief what you want. The evidence is all clearly there and is based of FACTS, none of which you refuted only tried to justify.

''Beleive me I stand whole-heartedly behind Trotskys calls for the removal of Josef Stalin as should any reasonable compassionate human being. If informing on Stalinist agents who wished to bring the Stalinist model to America prevented the spread of Stalinism then I say good for Trotsky, of course this claim is a lie though.''

Can you or did you prove that to be a lie? The FBI's own files admitted it. Get past the rhectoric and propgaganda we see that your Trot arguments don't stand up to the slightest argument. You've shown where your loyalties lie, America the biggest Capitalist exploiter and criminall of them all. Once again Trotskyism supporting Reaction. You call for the overthrow of Josef Stalin, well the Soviet people didn't. But let's see who else hated Stalin. Hitler, Churchill, Reagen, Franco, Truman my what credible list of brave humanitarians.

''The Stalinist movement reflects all the same idealist errors of its origins. To them, Stalins’s writings offer "answers" to all the problems of the world’s working class.''

To the same extent as Marx or Lenin yes. This is because Stalin contributed to Communist ideology as much as anyone else and his writings took into account alot of recent developments. 'The Development of world capitalism proceed not in the path of smooth and eve progress but through crisis and the catastrophes of war' Josef Stalin 1946. Is he not being proved right as we speak. But you are once again repeating the same old wrong arguement. I guess the population of Ecuador are just brainwashed 'Stalinists' who cant do anything? Also I'll have to repeat once again that the PLP has criticised and believes in criticism of everybody including Stalin.


''The Stalinists continue the "cult" of Stalin. They never criticize him, and so never learn anything. They never doubt that Stalin’s works were valid in their own time, which they were not and could not have been.''

Rhectoric which doesn't stand up to reality.

''They distrust workers, because – remember – the "ignorant" Soviet farmers of the 1930s rejected Stalin’s "brilliant" leadership and ideas, while "good" bolsheviks embraced Stalin in larger numbers.''

No we don't and we most certainly dont want to put people under 'Military Discipline' like Trotsky. In the 1930's workers could fire their own managers. The 'Farmers' whom no one called 'ignorant' (except Trotsky who said they represented 'Political barbairsm') took a full part in 'Stalin's ideas' by which I presume you mean collectivisation.

''Like Stalin himself, they are utterly incapable of communist modesty and self-criticism; and saw everyone who disagreed with them as a saboteur, kulak, enemy of the people, of Trotskyist plotter and consequently purged millions of innocent army officers, party members, workers, and farmers.''

Now this is really getting frustating. No 'modesty' or 'Self-criticsm'. Again this doesn't stand up to the facts or any sought of evidence.

"It was the same with the dacha at Kuntsevo....

"My father lived on the ground floor. He lived in one room and made it do for everything. He slept on the sofa, made up at night as a bed." (S. Alliluyeva: Letters to a Friend; London; 1967; p. 28).

"I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet....

"I really was, and still am, one of the pupils of the advanced workers of the Tiflis railway workshops." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; p. 182).

October 1927:

"And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 10; Moscow; 1954; p. 177).

December 1929:

"Your congratulations and greetings I place to the credit of the great Party of the working class which bore me and reared me in its own image and likeness. And just because I place them to the credit of our glorious Leninist Party, I make bold to tender you my Bolshevik thanks." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 146).

April 1930:

"There are some who think that the article `Dizzy with Success' was the result of Stalin's personal initiative. That, of course, is nonsense. It is not in order that personal initiative in a matter like this be taken by anyone, whoever he might be, that we have a Central Committee." (J. V. Stalin: Works, ibid.; p. 218).

August 1930:

"You speak of your `devotion' to me.... I would advise you to discard the `principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 20).

December 1931:

"As for myself, I am just a pupil of Lenin's, and the aim of my life is to be a worthy pupil of his....

"Marxism does not deny at all the role played by outstanding individuals or that history is made by people. But... great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will find themselves in the situation of Don Quixote....

"Individual persons cannot decide. Decisions of individuals are always, or nearly always, one-sided decisions.... In every collective body, there are people whose opinion must be reckoned with.... From the experience of three revolutions we know that out of every 100 decisions taken by individual persons without being tested and corrected collectively, approximately 90 are one-sided....

"Never under any circumstances would our workers now tolerate power in the hands of one person. With us personages of the greatest authority are reduced to nonentities, become mere ciphers, as soon as the masses of the workers lose confidence in them." (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 107-08, 109, 113).

As for your other points. The number of officers actually doubled during the 30's. And you have no prove what so ever to say 'Millions' were 'purged', 'killed' or whatever.


''They also "believe" Stalin’s claims that the millions of purged peasants, workers, army officers, and party cadre including Trotsky were involved in plotting the overthrow of the Soviet government. In general, they believe everything Stalin said.''

No we don't. I for one believe what the facts tell me. It's been proven those at the trials were guilty. It's been proven that a military conspiracy existed. And most important of all it's been proven beyond doubt that your claims of 'millions' or anybody being purged for no reason is complete rubbish. While you were saying that there were over 1 million prisoners in Albania it turns out there were 700. I don't believe it because 'Stalin said so', I base it on archival data, eye-witness accounts, first hand testimonies and most of all the complete lack of any evidence to back up what you and the Nazis and Capitalists have said. Indeed all the evidence is on the contray.

''In short, Stalinists’ whole political perspective is based upon refusal to question Stalin, his claims, and his actions. Since they never question Stalin, they are doomed to repeat Stalin’s errors, while adding some errors of their own.''

OMG. Did you really have to come up with such a long post full of such a lack of arguements where you keep on repeating yourself?

''In one section you claimed Trotskyists see all peasant involvement as dooming the revolution, than explain this staight from the Trotskyists mouths:


"3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie"

LOL, you have actually literally repeated the same arguemtn. See previous response.

''Today the line of the Stalinist groups is much like that of the revisionist, formerly pro-fascist, groups:

support for nationalism among "socialist" countries and a desire for "socialism in one country" which history has proven to be no solution to imperialist or capitalist oppression;''

History has proven it to be correct. Trotsky himself admitted Socialism had been established. In Albania it was a 'solution' (as in a alternative to Capitalism) as it was in the USSR between 1917 and 1953. In a lesser extent in Cuba and other countries it Socialism has been put into practice without the theory of 'Permanent Revolution'.


''Now you make one of the biggest lies ever! You claim it is Trotsky who supports popular or united fronts ! Well explain this then dipshit! :
http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/popula...frontism.html'' (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/popularfrontism.html'')

The link doesn't work for me. I can guess it said that Trotsky opposed a 'United front'. First of all the PLP were saying that Trots today make alliances, such as Jospan in France or attempting to take over the Labor Party here in Britain. Also as I've allready said Trotsky called for the overthrow of the Comintern because it followed a policy of 'United fronts' in the 30's in fighting Fascism. The difference is that the policy at that time was neccessary and actually produced results like in Spain, Korea and China.

''Looks like you got caught in the act of polling all those false lies out your ass, dont try and pull it Stalinist scum, real communists wont let you get away with it.''

You really are a pathectic little bully aren't you? You don't come up with any arguement, instead you try to get your way through with insults and even worse same old rhectoric backed up by nothing.

''Multi-stage theory? Wasnt it Stalin who came up with all the 5 year plans? I thought you supported Stalin, oh yea HYPOCRITE ALERT!''

Yes Stalin did come with the five year plans. What is your point here?

''The main importance of Stalinist groups for the capitalist ruling classes are the following:

I guess that's why they cant stop praising him like they do Trotsky. Please explain why thousands of 'Stalinists' were massacred by Yelstin outside the White House in 1993 yet in Fascist Italy you can find Trotsky's works (and not any of Lenin's, Marx or Stalin's) and why Hitler reccomended everyone read Trotsky because 'They would learn'?

''misleading mass movements into alliances with the "liberal" ruling class – the main forces of capitalist rule – against "reactionaries" and fascists; the united fronts that were popularized by Stalin and his continual alliance with monsters such as Nazi Germany with the German-Soviet pact etc.''

There was no 'alliance' with Nazi Germany. I've allready adressed the pact and the other 'points' there and am not going to do it again.

''misleading honest people into supporting nationalism, rather than fighting for proletarian internationalism, by seeking to build socialism in one country even when those nationalists are overtly fascist, like when Stalin signed the Nazi Soviet pact even while thousands of communists were being murdered by Hitler.''

Once again the USSR under Stalin and even afterwards to some extent stood by the princeple of 'Prolterariat Internationalism'. Nationalism is the greatest enemy of all people (note this was one of Stalin's mistakes in the war) you can see this in the PLP's articles and also Comintern writtings in the late 40's.

''Now you say they spread anti- soviet lies but I thought just a minute ago you said this:

"the promotion of "socialism," meaning pretty much what the Soviets meant by it – social-welfare state capitalism, with great inequalities among managers and workers -- the same system that led right back to capitalism everywhere it was tried;"

So which is it, are the Trotskyists trying to criticize and destroy the soviet state or are they supporting it; are the Soviets welfare capitalists or a great communist movement.''

You really don't read things do you? Instead you just jump to narrow minded opinion and don't think before you write. The PLP are of the believe that the stage of Socialism can be avoided, and the workers can move straight to Communism. This is there opinion not shared by many more peope. They point out that 'Capitalist' things such as wages led back to Capitalism. Moreover they are criticising the regime of Khruschev and Breznheve which was State-Capitalist. It also shows that even the 'Stalinists' PLP does infact criticise the mistakes made. Contray to what you have been saying.

''This paper has shown you will go to the farthest fringes of hypocrisy to take potshots at Trotsky, even if it means contradicting yourself time after time in the same article.''

Well that's a matter of opinion I suppose. You can now though respond to it and my two posts cant you?

[RedComrade]

Your source is a stalinist site for goodness sake, they are the only and Im serious the only people Ive ever come across to deny Stalin was behind Trotskys assasination. Mercader even confessed without coercion, and they discovered documents and communiques that directly linked him to his NKVD handle, I dont have a website source but Ill try and post a barnes and noble.com link to the book if its still in print.

No not the Nazi press, Robert Service, his book is at my mums but it has its sources Ill look em up when Im over there, the book however, is A Twentieth Century History of Russia, its preety good. Service is acknowledged as one of if not the most knowlegable sources on Vladimir Lenin and has spent decades studying the matters, this guy isnt a Robert Conquest even if he is harsh on the Soviet Experiment.

Unfortunately the U.S.S.R's policy was anything but consistent. Who was it who supplied the Greek freedomfighters? Tito, Stalin forbade any aid and as a result they were crushed. Who was it who supplied the DPRK, Mao, all Soviet military equipment used had to be paid for in full, the bastard didnt even offer a discount. As for China I have already noted the May massacre, after which the USSR still pushed for a laying down of arms and only supplied minimal assistance until the Japs got involved. Your info on Trotsky was anything but conclusive and is questionable at best, re-post it however if you like. Actually the pact re-armed Germany and provided them with much needed Steel and Natural Gas, without these supplies it is questionable whether or not the Nazis would have been able to launch key offensives in France and Africa.

THE TROTS NEVER WERE ALLIES OF FRANCO OR HITLER!!! While the Comintern was still directing the German Communist Party to focus on fighting the "social fascists" - the Social Democrats from the party Engels helped found, Trotsky was detailing the grave rise of the far right and pleading for the Geman Communists to engage the Nazis insted of focusing on the Social Democrats, as for the material assitance the Trots had no country but if they had one Im sure they would have given more then that, was it not you who said the Trots embraced a fanatical internationalism. Per capita I would argue that just as many if not more Trots risked there lives to fight Franco.

Do you deny that the KPRF are, and claim to be a Stalinist party. To this day they carry pictures of Stalin at their marches and still give railing speeches against Trotsky (and Jews in general for that matter) and speak great praise of "Comrade" Stalin.

OMG Trotsky was the cheif negotiator at Bret-Litvosk for christssake! Trotsky did more then get the highest military medal he was placed in the highest military position and was commander of the Red Army during the Civil War, their victories wer his victories, he did more than Stalin ever did without question. Oh and on Stalins medal did he receive it after Lenin died, what specific events did he participate in that led him to receive this medal? Bonapartist tactics?, perhaps Bonaparte and Trotsky were both brillant military leaders so in a since I guess his tactics were Bonapartist. Trotskys flair for publicity?, look at a may day parade under Stalin for chrissake, was it Trotsky who had his image projected into the Moscow sky?

Socialism is a democratic revolution, the passage refers to the creation of a Workers Democracy, or socialism hence the "democratic revolution". Its well known that Stalin's collectivist policies were hated by the peasantry, his contempt for them is hardly concealable, and the policies resulted in thousands dead.

The popular coaalition you referred to was not an alliance between workers and peasants, it was an alliance with other burgeois liberal parties. Thats why Trotsky was shouting the whole time the KPD was combatting the SPD for them to unite and fight the fascists! What was Stalin telling the KPD at the time>? He was praising there combatance of the "social fascists".

Ahh yes Im such a fascist, Seig Heil! Comrade Tito do not resist the Nazis! Greek Comrades lay down your arms! Chinese Comrades lay down your arms forget the Shanghai massacre! Yupp what a regular fascist I am.

This is all lies, Trotsky knew that in order for a permaneant Socialist Republic to be established the advanced workers of at least one of the Western Countires would have to establish a workers state. Trotsky was proved right, when Eastern Europe fell so too did the USSR, indeed the majority of the Communist countries collapsed when one fell. A single socialist state by itself cannott survive this was the correct thesis of Comrade Trotsky.

I do not worship Trotsky, he was a revisionist, however since I do not adhere to anything not Marx, not Trotsky, not even Socialism as a dogma I still embrace aspects of his ideology even if compared to Marx it may be revisionist.

Was Trotskys name even on the ballot? Was everyone allowed to vote, Was Stalin in bed with the Cheka, Was there any voter intimidation?, Was this before or after Trotsky had been exiled, Was Trotsky given equal acess to Pravda and other political outlets?

Explain this qoute for me then, straight from Engel's "Principles of Communism":

"(V) Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

Theres the qoute for you.

I didnt say that I personally felt that only Industrial workers could establish a true revolution I said thats the position taken by Orthodox Marxists.

That is why Stalin forced Mao and Kim Ill Sung to pay full price for all military equipment used to expell the imperialist agressors from the Koren peninsula.

My sources? Read any damned book on the Soviet Union not written by a Stalinist party, I think my specific source though was the book Cold War by CNN.

Show some evidence of this telegram, oh and so let me guess every Stalinist and member of Stalinist parties adheres strictly to Stalinism, for chrissakes human being dont even have the capacity to adhere completely to the ideas of whatever ideologue they may favor.

Yeah facts as told to you by the men who committed the crime, facts as presented by the organization that was responsible. Its like trusting the Fox who guarded the Hen House to give you an accurate account of why all the Hens are missing. Would you trust your government to give an accurate account of their sins? I dont exactly trust the state under Stalin to either.

Exploit as they may I think myself and my countrymen would much rather live under Bushs America then Stalins Russia. If this makes me a traitor then so be it.

That little qoute you provided by Stalin is hardly a new idea, all it is a rehash or lip service to ideas already planned out and written down by Marx and Lenin. He was far from a Marxist scholar and contributed nothing new or positive to the Ideology.

LOL in case you didnt notice that "rhetoric" isnt mine, I copied the PLP thing and changed Trotsky to Stalin to mock just how much of it was rhetoric. Lemme guess though you werent complaining when this plainly dogmatic childish rhetoric was directed against Trotsky.

Yeah all the farmers rallied around Stalin, thats why they were so full of hate they welcomed Hitler into Ukraine with flowers. Oh and you mean the Labor Armies that were first suggested by Engels Trot was just rehashing like Stalin did to the theories of Imperialism laid out by Lenin and Marx.

I like those qoutes but what one preaches and what one practices are two different things. If Stalin had wanted to he could have easily crushed this horrible scab known as the Cult of Leadership like he crushed the Left Oposition.

Your supposed adherence to the facts is a selective adherence to the facts. Far more reports, eye-witness accounts, and scholary documents run contrary to your beleifs, you solution, much like the neo-nazis of today is to write these off as lies and slander to tarnish what is truly good and just. I might not take this so seriously if your words did not run perfectly paralell to the claims of Neo-Nazis.

LOL all I did was copy and paste the article and change Trotsky with Stalin, if you think this is boring rhetoric me and you agree on something, the whole point of the original post was this articles a joke.

Now you make one of the most revisionist and flat-out wrong claims that a socialist can make. Nationalism in all its manifestations is harmful, the workers of the world have no nationality. Nationalism is the most divisive, harmful scab on the backs of the workers. Marx and Engels made it clear "workers of the world unite" not "workers of Albania unite".

I merely pointed out that the articles claims that Trotsky was a heralder of United Fronts is a lie. There judgement seems to be that United Fronts are wrong, you seem to disagree, perhaps you should ***** at them.

You endorse this article, you also endorse Stalin, this article condemns muti-stage theory, Marx, Stalin, Trotsky they all supported it. To endorse this article and Stalin is hypocritical, that is my point.

The only person I can think of who thought you could jump straight into communism was Pol-Pot. Have fun with all your PLP comrades down in Cambodia.

[Cassius Clay]

''Your source is a stalinist site for goodness sake, they are the only and Im serious the only people Ive ever come across to deny Stalin was behind Trotskys assasination. Mercader even confessed without coercion, and they discovered documents and communiques that directly linked him to his NKVD handle, I dont have a website source but Ill try and post a barnes and noble.com link to the book if its still in print.''

Who is 'they'? Yes I've admitted I may be wrong on this for that I apoligise for stating it as FACT, however you haven't provided the evidence I asked for and that 'Stalinist' source relies on Issac Deutcher a supporter of Trotsky.


''No not the Nazi press, Robert Service, his book is at my mums but it has its sources Ill look em up when Im over there, the book however, is A Twentieth Century History of Russia, its preety good. Service is acknowledged as one of if not the most knowlegable sources on Vladimir Lenin and has spent decades studying the matters, this guy isnt a Robert Conquest even if he is harsh on the Soviet Experiment.''

Service is a man who has admitted his goal 'Is to find a new side to Lenin' as in make him out to be some sought of psychopath. Go to any Trot website they will tell you.


''Unfortunately the U.S.S.R's policy was anything but consistent. Who was it who supplied the Greek freedomfighters? Tito, Stalin forbade any aid and as a result they were crushed. Who was it who supplied the DPRK, Mao, all Soviet military equipment used had to be paid for in full, the bastard didnt even offer a discount. As for China I have already noted the May massacre, after which the USSR still pushed for a laying down of arms and only supplied minimal assistance until the Japs got involved. Your info on Trotsky was anything but conclusive and is questionable at best, re-post it however if you like. Actually the pact re-armed Germany and provided them with much needed Steel and Natural Gas, without these supplies it is questionable whether or not the Nazis would have been able to launch key offensives in France and Africa.''

Sorry your merely speculating here. And it's a bad speculation. The Nazis could of smashed there rival Capitalists in France without any 'aid' from the Soviets. The Pact did not rearm Germany, rather it gave time for the USSR to re-arm. You know fully well my 'info' on Trotsky's aid to Japense Imperialism was fine, that's why you didn't even attempt to refute it. As for telling the Chinese to 'lay down there arms' this is complete rubbish or not giving them anything.

No. 28
From the Dimitrov Diary:
7th July 1941

- Information for Mao Zedong, that monetary help (1,000,000 doll[ars]) is agreed to and will be sent in parts.

(G. Dimitrov: Dnevnik, p. 239).

Also on the United front.

''Howsoever difficult and dangerous the position of the Chinese communists may be, they cannot leave unanswered the bandit-like attack on the Fourth Army and not defend itself against attacks on the Eighth Army and the Special Region by the armies of Chiang Kai-shek.

In this way, if Chiang Kai-shek does not stop the aggressive actions of his generals, inevitably a big internecine war would break out, which, of course would only be of use to the Japanese.

With a vew to prevent such a civil war, along with possible measures from the Soviet side to influence Chiang Kai-shek, it follows that a suitable campaign be launched in America, England and other countries, which can to an extent pressurise the Chinese government and to an extent influence public opinion in China. I think this campaign should be carried in two ways:

1) To expose, in foreign papers favourably inclined towards China the assault of the Chinese reactionaries, which frustrates the unity of the Chinese people against Japanese warmongers:

2) To send protests to Chiang Kai Shek from the Chinese people (different associations, organisations, public figures) and to call on him and the Chinese people - not to allow the breakout of an internal conflict and split in the anti-Japanese front. Not to allow the Japanese to conquer China with the 'hands of the Chinese themselves'

We have the possibility of transmitting to our friends in a fully safe manner instructions for such a campaign.

Kindly give me your opinion on it. Does it follow that we take such steps.

With friend(ly) greetings, G. D[imitrov].' ''

Quite clearly the Soviets respected the rights of CCP to defend itself and to fight the Nationalists if attacked unprovoked. And never did the CCP come under the authority of the Nationalists or have to take orders from them.

'In 1927 the Comintern was sending its direction to Chen Tu-hsiu (the then general secretary of the Communist Party of China), who made his own interpretation of them (ignoring them sometimes when he disagreed), without consulting his comrades'.

From the CCP themselves.

And ''From Edgar Snow
Daily Herald Special Correspondent
YENAN North Shensi (delayed)


First, he denied flatly that the Chinese Communists had ever submitted to the Kuomintang [China's single official party, headed by General Chiang Kai-shek, the Communists were stated to have accepted its leadership in 1937, when they joined up with Chiang as the war began].

The Communist Party programme, Mao said, was completely independent of the Kuomintang and aimed ultimately at social revolution.

Moreover, he declared, the areas at present under control of Communist troops were administratively independent of Chiang Kai-shek's Government.

Next Mao talked of help from Russia, which he said was increasing as British and French aid was being withdrawn.''

As for Greece, who gave aslyum to thousands of Greek leftists after the war? The Soviet Union, I exposed Tito for what he was in another thread in the History forum. And who trained all the DPRK officers, according to Sergo Beria who is very anti-Stalin they recieved all in the training in the USSR. And all those MiG 15's were Soviet Air Force flown by Soviet pilots, if it hadn't been for them then it's likely the UN would of bombed a few million more than the three million they did anyway.


''THE TROTS NEVER WERE ALLIES OF FRANCO OR HITLER!!!''

Yes they were.

Were the POUM Leaders Franco's Agents?

The POUM leaders were accused by the PCE of being in the pay of Franco, and some of the incidents reported above indicate why this was plausible and widely believed in Republican Spain.(85) Plainly, the POUM earned their money, even if they didn't collect it.

On May 11, 5 days after the fighting began, Faupel, Hitler's ambassador to Franco, wrote:

"Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent's reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn't intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results."(86)

Soon after the May fighting, a number of Franco agents were caught in Barcelona, and implicated Nin--perhaps for their own reasons.(87)


''While the Comintern was still directing the German Communist Party to focus on fighting the "social fascists" - the Social Democrats from the party Engels helped found, Trotsky was detailing the grave rise of the far right and pleading for the Geman Communists to engage the Nazis insted of focusing on the Social Democrats, as for the material assitance the Trots had no country but if they had one Im sure they would have given more then that, was it not you who said the Trots embraced a fanatical internationalism. Per capita I would argue that just as many if not more Trots risked there lives to fight Franco.''

And you 'arguement' is based on what? CNN? Half of the orginall 60,000 People's Army was made up of PCE members. The International brigades were oganised by CP's throughout the world (one of whom completly refuted Orwell's version of events on seeing the film 'Land and Freedom') and the Soviet Trade Unions raised more money than any others put together.

On Germany, well ofcourse with the benefit of hignsight it would of been right to ally with the 'Social Democrats'. But also it with the benefit of hignsight we can see that they were just as Stalin described them 'Social Fascists' since they approved the Decree that gave Hitler dictatorial powers and locked up KPD members. And who fought the Nazis on the streets right from the beggining, who called for a general strike when Hitler became Chancellor? The KPD. Yes a mistake was made to some decree and the Comintern regonised this and Dmitrov came up with the 'United front' policy. What was Trotsky's reaction? To describe it as a betrayal. Clearly a example of opportunism.


''Do you deny that the KPRF are, and claim to be a Stalinist party. To this day they carry pictures of Stalin at their marches and still give railing speeches against Trotsky (and Jews in general for that matter) and speak great praise of "Comrade" Stalin.''

Yes I do deny they are a 'Stalinist' party. They are Social-Democrats, Zyuganov is a nationalist who sais the ideas of 'Marx and Lenin are outdated' and no longer reconises the need for a violent revolution. Once again no where did I mention the KPRF, you've ignored the other parties and example's I've bought up. Having said that alot of the rank and file of the KPRF are genuine and what does it tell you when every politician is having to act as some sought of 'Fan of Stalin' (when they are not) in order to gain popularity?


''OMG Trotsky was the cheif negotiator at Bret-Litvosk for christssake!''

Do you deny that he called for a policy of 'No peace and no war'? Funny that all you Trots crucify Stalin for signing the Pact but when Trotsky does it it's okay.

''Trotsky did more then get the highest military medal he was placed in the highest military position and was commander of the Red Army during the Civil War, their victories wer his victories, he did more than Stalin ever did without question.''

Why because he said this in his autobiography, or because that's what your school book sais?

"KOLCHAK: This is in the summer of 1919. Our troops are advancing against Kolchak and are operating near Ufa. A meeting of the Central Committee Is held. Trotsky proposes that the advance be halted along the line of the River Belaya (near Ufa), leaving the Urals In the hands of Kolchak, and that part of the troops be withdrawn from the Eastern Front and transferred to the Southern Front. A heated debate takes place. The Central Committee disagrees with Trotsky, being of the opinion that the Urals, with its factories and railway network, must not be left In the hands of Kolchak, for the latter could easily recuperate there, organise a strong force and reach the Volga again, Kolchak must first be driven beyond the Ural range Into the Siberian steppes, and only after that has been done should forces be transferred to the South. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky's plan. Trotsky hands in his resignation. The Central Committee refuses to accept it. Commander-in-Chief Vatsetis, who supported Trotsky's plan, resigns. His place is taken by a new Commander-in-Chief, Kamenev. From that moment Trotsky ceases to take a direct part in the affairs of the Eastern Front.

"DENIKIN: This Is In the autumn of 1919. The offensive against Denikin is not proceeding successfully. The 'steel ring' around Mamontov (Mamontov's raid) is obviously collapsing. Denikin captures Kursk. Denikin is approaching Orel. Trotsky is summoned from the Southern Front to attend a meeting of the Central Committee. The Central Committee regards the situation as alarming and decides to send new military leaders to the Southern Front and to withdraw Trotsky. The new military leaders demand 'no Intervention' by Trotsky in the affairs of the Southern Front. Operations on the Southern Front, right up to the capture of Rostov-on-Don and Odessa by our troops, proceed without Trotsky.

"Let anybody try to refute these facts."

Actions like these are probably why he was eventually completly replaced by Marshall Frunze.

''Oh and on Stalins medal did he receive it after Lenin died, what specific events did he participate in that led him to receive this medal?''

No ofcourse he didn't.

In November 1919, Stalin and Trotsky received the newly created Order of the Red Banner for their military successes. Lenin and the Central Committee estimated that Stalin's merits in leading the armed struggle in the most difficult areas equaled Trotsky's in organizing and leading the Red Army at the central level. But to make himself come out in a better light, Trotsky wrote: `Throughout the period of the Civil War, Stalin remained a third-rate figure'.

.

Leon Trotsky, Stalin: An appraisal of the man and his influence (New York: Harper & Brother Publishers, 1941), p. 333.


McNeal, who is often prejudiced against Stalin, writes on this subject:

`Stalin had emerged ... as a political--military chief whose contribution to the Red victory was second only to Trotsky's. Stalin had played a smaller role than his rival in the overall organization of the Red Army, but he had been more important in providing direction on crucial fronts. If his reputation as a hero was far below Trotsky's, this had less to do with objective merit than with Stalin's lack of flair ... for self-advertisement.'

What 'specific events' was Stalin involved in?

''In June 1918, the North Caucasus was the only important grain-growing region in the hands of the Bolsheviks. It was threatened by Krasnov's army. Stalin was sent to Tsaritsyn, the future Stalingrad, to ensure grain delivery. He found complete chaos. On July 19, he wrote to Lenin, asking for military authority over the region: `I myself, without formalities, will remove those army commanders and ©ommissars who are ruining things'. Stalin was named President of the Southern War Front Council. Later, Stalin would oppose the old Tsarist artillery general Sytin, named by Trotsky as Commander of the South Front, and the Commander-in-Chief, the old Tsarist colonel Vatsetis. Tsaritsyn was successfully defended.

.

Ibid. , pp. 121--127.

`Lenin regarded `the measures decided on by Stalin' as a model'.

.

McNeal, op. cit. , p. 157.


In October 1918, Stalin was appointed to the Military Council of the Ukrainian Front; its task was to overthrow Skoropadsky's régime, set up by Germany.

In December, when the situation dramatically deteriorated in the Urals, thanks to the advance of Kolchak's reactionary troops, Stalin was sent with full powers to put an end to the catastrophic state of the Third Army and to purge the incompetent commissars. In his inquiry, Stalin criticized the policies of Trotsky and Vatsetis. During the Eighth Congress in March 1919, Trotsky was criticized by many delegates `for his dictatorial manners, ... for his adoration of the specialists, and his torrent of ill-considered telegrams'.


''Bonapartist tactics?, perhaps Bonaparte and Trotsky were both brillant military leaders so in a since I guess his tactics were Bonapartist.''

Lenin was reffering to Trotsky attempting to put his 'Military Discipline' into practice. Not through some Military genius.

''Trotskys flair for publicity?, look at a may day parade under Stalin for chrissake, was it Trotsky who had his image projected into the Moscow sky?''

I've allready showed how Stalin fought against such things. I also showed how Stalin lived a simple life, refuting your claim that he 'Lacked self-modesty and criticism'. Unlike Trotsky who would sell his writings to British broadsheets for 45,000 pounds (Hmm now why would right-wing newspapers want Trotsky's writings and opinions? I wonder).

''Socialism is a democratic revolution, the passage refers to the creation of a Workers Democracy, or socialism hence the "democratic revolution". Its well known that Stalin's collectivist policies were hated by the peasantry, his contempt for them is hardly concealable, and the policies resulted in thousands dead.''

Once again no where does Trotsky even once say the word 'Socialism' in that quote.

''The newspaper "Trud" had published this interview with former dissident Alexander Zinoviev. The newspaper asked Zinoviev about his mother when she was working on a collective farm if she would like to quit the collective and have her own property. She always said no. Why? Even with all of the problems at that time… she liked the progress, the standard of living, the happiness and the culture of the population.''

From a former Anti-'Stalinist'. So much for the peasants hating 'Collectvisation'.

A peasant from the Black-Earth region declared:

`I have lived my whole life among the batraks (agricultural workers). The October revolution gave me land, I got credit from year to year, I got a poor horse, I can't work the land, my children are ragged and hungry, I simply can't manage to improve my farm in spite of the help of the Soviet authorities. I think there's only one way out: join a tractor column, back it up and get it going.'


''The popular coaalition you referred to was not an alliance between workers and peasants, it was an alliance with other burgeois liberal parties. Thats why Trotsky was shouting the whole time the KPD was combatting the SPD for them to unite and fight the fascists! What was Stalin telling the KPD at the time>? He was praising there combatance of the "social fascists".

Allready addressed this.

''Ahh yes Im such a fascist, Seig Heil! Comrade Tito do not resist the Nazis! Greek Comrades lay down your arms! Chinese Comrades lay down your arms forget the Shanghai massacre! Yupp what a regular fascist I am.''

And this.

''This is all lies, Trotsky knew that in order for a permaneant Socialist Republic to be established the advanced workers of at least one of the Western Countires would have to establish a workers state.''

And if they don't? Once again what makes you think only the 'advanced workers' can have a revolution? Lenin correctly stated in regards to Lloyd George's England that the workers were effectivly being bribed of the profits from the exploitation of the Empire (although there was a General Strike in 1926 and Stalin fully supported the workers). In spite of this the Soviet Union construted socialism and aided numerous revolutions.

''Trotsky was proved right, when Eastern Europe fell so too did the USSR, indeed the majority of the Communist countries collapsed when one fell. A single socialist state by itself cannott survive this was the correct thesis of Comrade Trotsky.''

The Soviet Union survived the 20's, 30's and the greatest military invasion in history 'Alone'. What fell in the 1990's was a corrupt Revisionist almost Capitalist system. And it doesn't help when your leader is in the CIA's pocket. Trotsky was proved wrong, the Soviet Union when it was Socialist survived, as did Albania for fourty years, as does Cuba and the DPRK.

''I do not worship Trotsky, he was a revisionist, however since I do not adhere to anything not Marx, not Trotsky, not even Socialism as a dogma I still embrace aspects of his ideology even if compared to Marx it may be revisionist.''

Frankly I could no longer care what 'ideology' you claim to follow. It is clear though you follow what woul be described as 'Trotskyism'. Everything from the lies you spread about Socialism to your outright Fascist believs in Trotsky's ideas.

''Was Trotskys name even on the ballot? Was everyone allowed to vote, Was Stalin in bed with the Cheka, Was there any voter intimidation?, Was this before or after Trotsky had been exiled, Was Trotsky given equal acess to Pravda and other political outlets?''

Ofcourse Trotsky's name was on the ballot, that's why he got 6000 votes. I'll once again quote this.

''An astonishing measure of freedom of debate, criticism and assembly was granted to the Trotskyist oppositionists by the Soviet government… The social and economic policies of the Stalin administration were subjected to continuous criticism… No attempt was made to suppress Trotsky's agitation until it had openly exposed itself as, in fact, anti-Soviet and connected with other anti-Soviet forces."


''Explain this qoute for me then, straight from Engel's "Principles of Communism":

"(V) Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

Theres the qoute for you.''

Trotsky spoke of throwing workers into camps and crushing the Unions (a bit like Thatcher), here Engels is stating that he's of the opinion that 'Industrial Armies' are neccassery in argculture. There is no comparision. And if you read up on the '25,000' you'll see that is probably what Engels had in mind, not Trotsky's Fascism.


''I didnt say that I personally felt that only Industrial workers could establish a true revolution I said thats the position taken by Orthodox Marxists.''

'Orthodox Marxists' being Trots. It was proven wrong over 70 years ago. Lenin was fully confident by the early 20's that the USSR could and indeed have to set about building Socialism. Trotsky was of the opinion that this couldn't be done, he went to the people and the party with these ideas and they rejected him.


''That is why Stalin forced Mao and Kim Ill Sung to pay full price for all military equipment used to expell the imperialist agressors from the Koren peninsula.''

I've allready refuted this.

''My sources? Read any damned book on the Soviet Union not written by a Stalinist party, I think my specific source though was the book Cold War by CNN.''

CNN LOL. The same people who declared the Taliban to be 'Freedom fighters' and said in 1984 that were ten million political prisoners in the USSR, yet all of them somehow disapeared in 1991. Wow what a reliable source.

''Show some evidence of this telegram, oh and so let me guess every Stalinist and member of Stalinist parties adheres strictly to Stalinism, for chrissakes human being dont even have the capacity to adhere completely to the ideas of whatever ideologue they may favor.''

Erm you've just gone mad here and I don't know what you are talking about. As for the Telegram, I showed it in the other thread, and then you merely tried to justify it by saying something stupid like they were trying to save China from evil 'Stalinism'.

''Yeah facts as told to you by the men who committed the crime, facts as presented by the organization that was responsible. Its like trusting the Fox who guarded the Hen House to give you an accurate account of why all the Hens are missing. Would you trust your government to give an accurate account of their sins? I dont exactly trust the state under Stalin to either.''

Funny but I've seen no where where you have refuted any of the Facts I've presented and I'll doubt you will refute any in this post. I've admitted I may be wrong in regards to Trotsky's assasanation, you should do the same.

''Exploit as they may I think myself and my countrymen would much rather live under Bushs America then Stalins Russia. If this makes me a traitor then so be it.''

Then so be it.

''That little qoute you provided by Stalin is hardly a new idea, all it is a rehash or lip service to ideas already planned out and written down by Marx and Lenin. He was far from a Marxist scholar and contributed nothing new or positive to the Ideology.''

Yes because Stalin never wrote anything did he? Sigh.

''LOL in case you didnt notice that "rhetoric" isnt mine, I copied the PLP thing and changed Trotsky to Stalin to mock just how much of it was rhetoric. Lemme guess though you werent complaining when this plainly dogmatic childish rhetoric was directed against Trotsky.''

I'll have to point out again that I by no means agree with everything the PLP stands for or says. I've acknowledged there are serious weaknesses in that article, but never the less the article's main point is still correct. Trotskyism is reactionary.

''Yeah all the farmers rallied around Stalin, thats why they were so full of hate they welcomed Hitler into Ukraine with flowers. Oh and you mean the Labor Armies that were first suggested by Engels Trot was just rehashing like Stalin did to the theories of Imperialism laid out by Lenin and Marx.''

What Ukrainians welcomed Hitler with flowers? Oh you mean the one's planted in their by the Nazis before hand.

''There is a well-known Canadian Ukrainian historian Orest Subtelny, who wrote in one of his works: "On the eve of the attack by Germany on the USSR, already there was formed the Ukrainian Underground Army, the first formation was called 'Legion of Ukrainian Nationalists.' This legion was composed of 600 members and it was split into two battalions, code-named "Nightingale" and "Roland". These Ukrainian fascists came together with the Germans into Ukraine. In June of 1941 in Lvov, they distributed leaflets, which ended up with these words; "People, do understand! Moscow, Poland, Hungary, Jews – these are the enemies! We must eliminate them!" In the Act of Declaration of Ukrainian "Independent" State in 1941, the document ended with these words: "Glory to the victorious German Army and its great leader, Adolph Hitler!"

Oh but the Nazi (and Trot for that matter) account is far more reliable because they were such nice people?

Five million Ukranians served in the Red Army and partisan detachments, how many fought for the Nazis? Perhaps ten thousand. In the 1970's in a interview for the BBC series 'World at War' a veteran Ukranian partisan said 'People say the resistance was only bought on by the Fascist cruelty. This is wrong. I believe the resistance was inevitable.'


''I like those qoutes but what one preaches and what one practices are two different things. If Stalin had wanted to he could have easily crushed this horrible scab known as the Cult of Leadership like he crushed the Left Oposition.''

Those quotes clearly tell you that Stalin fought against it. That's why he lived a simple life when he could of easily enjoyed many luxuries. They show that Stalin did fight against it. Stalin did not 'crush the Left oppostion' the party threw them out because they refused to bow to the majority's will. Even if Stalin had the power to arrest or execute (which he didn't) anyone then i'm sure right now you would be calling him a murderer for simply killing someone who praised him. In South Africa a cleaner started singing a song in Mandela's presence when he walked by, yet you don't say he had a 'Cult' do you.

''Your supposed adherence to the facts is a selective adherence to the facts. Far more reports, eye-witness accounts, and scholary documents run contrary to your beleifs, you solution, much like the neo-nazis of today is to write these off as lies and slander to tarnish what is truly good and just. I might not take this so seriously if your words did not run perfectly paralell to the claims of Neo-Nazis.''

Fine if you can refute everything I've said in this post and others and then provide your own reliable sources then please do.

''Now you make one of the most revisionist and flat-out wrong claims that a socialist can make. Nationalism in all its manifestations is harmful, the workers of the world have no nationality. Nationalism is the most divisive, harmful scab on the backs of the workers. Marx and Engels made it clear "workers of the world unite" not "workers of Albania unite".

Erm what are you talking about, I know and have said that Nationalism is one of the greatest enemy's. Once again your arguining a point which nobody has used against you.


''I merely pointed out that the articles claims that Trotsky was a heralder of United Fronts is a lie. There judgement seems to be that United Fronts are wrong, you seem to disagree, perhaps you should ***** at them.''

No what the article sais is that 'Trotskyites today' are in favor of alliances. For example Jospan in France and the WWP in America supporting everyone and everything who is anti-American.

''You endorse this article, you also endorse Stalin, this article condemns muti-stage theory, Marx, Stalin, Trotsky they all supported it. To endorse this article and Stalin is hypocritical, that is my point.''

No it isn't. As I've allready explained the PLP are both critical of everybody and also believe that the stage of 'Socialism' should be kept to a short period if not avoided all together. There is nothing 'hyprocritical' or 'contradictory' since they frankly admit that they disagree with some of Marx, Lenin and Stalin and that if you read Stalin's 'Economic problems in the Soviet Union' it's apparent Stalin was concentrating on setting about elminating the remaining 'Capitalist' elements to the economy.


''The only person I can think of who thought you could jump straight into communism was Pol-Pot. Have fun with all your PLP comrades down in Cambodia.''

I believe you would have more fun in Cambodia since Pol Pot shot workers for turning up late like Trotsky wanted to do. Not to mention Pol Pot never claimed to be any sought of Marxist or Maoist until 1977, literally never. And you clearly haven't read what the PLP think of Pol Pot.

















[/quote]

[RedComrade]

It is well known Stalin had been calling for Trotskys head for years. Here is a passage from the personal memoirs of a Stalinist agent:

Sudoplatov and Sudoplatov, "Special Tasks" pgs 99-100

"Stalin told me "We must do away with Trotsky this year, before the outbreak of the war, you will be answerable to no one but Beria for this, and you are to take full charge of the mission"

Sudoplatov went on to lead a manhunt spanning from Paris, Brussels, and the U.S untill Trotsky showed up in Mexico. Sudoplatov's team tried several times to assasinate Trotsky untill Mercader got him. Sudoplatov's personal testimony given in the book "Special Tasks" is just one of the many numerous examples that proved it was an NKVD job. Perhaps the most famous evidence was the sucessive inquiries carried out by Julian Gorky see the book written by Julian Gorkin "Ainsi fut assasine Trotski" its in French though but it is probably the best book with the most evidence on the subject.

I have not yet read his work on Lenin but I have reviewed his credentials and they are many. Because he said he wants to find a new side to him does not mean anything. Untill youve read his work you have no idea what that side is, if you have a disagreement with his work read it and then type up an article refuting it. You stalinist are quick to label this and that capitalist lies but rarely have I seen an intelligent analysis and rebuttal from your ranks, particularily on the book "the Black Book of Communism".

The facts about the Greek Civil War, the Korean War, and the Shanghai massacres of May 1927 are hardly speculative. As for the Nazi-Soviet pact anyone who studies military history knows that without the pact Germany never would have or could have invaded Poland and the resources I listed were almost exclusively obtained from Russia, without those resources one could not have launched a full-scale Blitzkreig conquering all of Europe. What I said about China referred to the USSR's policy in the late twenties. Of course the Soviets would have supplied China in 1939, they also supplied the Kuo-mintang and they did it entirely out of self-interest. Any git who looks at the region and Japanese Imperialism's relation to Russia knows that Russia would have supplied Mao. The facts are before the Japs were in the picture (like back during the Shanghai massacres) Russia did little to nothing to aid the rebels. After world war II it was a different story due to the replacement of Japanese Imperialism in the region with American imperialsim.

The Greek leftists wouldnt have needed asylum if the USSR had done as Tito had and armed the poor bastards. Do you deny that the USSR forbade the arming of the Greeks and that of all the communist nations only Yugoslavia aided them?

Did you not read what I said? I did not deny that the Soviets gave the Koreans military equipment, I said that while they gave it to them they made them pay for it, at full price. Perhaps you consider the training and technicians that came with the weapons some sort of discount but their services were also priced and did not come free.

Wow 13 fascists infiltraited the POUM, just as I'm sure there were PCE and POUM agents that had infiltraited Franco's force. If an American agent infiltraits the PLA today that hardly implicates the whole damn PLA as American spies. Sorry bud but all your evidence linking Trotskyism to fascism is weak at best, if its not re-post it. Especially that B.S about Trotsky being linked to Nazis, Japan, and Franco.

Of course the Soviet wings would be able to raise more but that is because they had the full backing of a damned state for chrissake. Do you deny that the Trotskyists would have done as much if not more if they had possesed a whole state to do it with?

Wow at least you acknowledge some error concerning the Stalinist policies in pre-Nazi Germany. Its a start I guess, or at least a start for a Stalinist.

I will respond to the rest when I have more time.

[Cassius Clay]

Yes I've allready admited I was most likely wrong about Trotsky's assasination.


I have read parts of it and Service's aim is to portray Lenin as some sought of pychopath, in a BBC documentary a few years ago he was very much involved in it had Lenin's brain with 'voices' over saying 'this mind isn't right' or similar clap-trap. On the 'Black book of Communism', LOL I'm not interested in Nazi rubbish. If you really interested read 'Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union' by Mario Sousa a train driver in Sweden.

Well it's not my fault you wish to ignore all the evidence I gave you about the substanial aid given to the Chinese CP right from the beggining and how that aid was NOT given to the Nationalists or how the policy of uniting did NOT somehow interfere with the CCP's internal policies and independence. On the pact, I've allready addressed it. To say that Germany could not of invaded France because of whatever supplies came from the Soviet Union is rubbish. I suppose the Iron, from Sweden and Norway had nothing to do with it? Or the oil from Romania, or the fact that the German Army came up with a plan which totally confused a allready demoralised French Army and population? Or that Germany had been preparing a self-sufficient war since 1934?

First of Yugoslavia was not Communist or even Socialist. Tito was a full ally of the west and as I showed in the thread in the History forum his aim rather was to create his own little Empire.

In reference to Korea again. I'll redirect you to Dmitrov writings. Those MiG 15's were not given to the DPRK and Soviet pilots paid with their lifes to protect the Korean people.

On the POUM and Franco, they were not undercover, they were proudly declared Trotskyites. I've shown you the evidence and all you've done is asked for more.

''More Bougeois Gold and Trotsky
> Service to Imperialists
>
> Subject: BOURGEOIS GOLD and TROTSKY SERVICE TO
> IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE
>
> "As far back as 1903, Trotsky had mastered the
> propaganda device of what
> Lenin called 'ultra revolutionary slogans which cost
> him nothing"
>
> "Now on a World scale, Trotsky proceeded to develop
> the propaganda technique
> he had originally employed against lenin and the
> Bolshevik Party. In
> innumerable ultra-leftist and violently
> radical-sounding
> articles, books, pamphlets and speeches, Trotsky
> began to attack the Soviet
> regime and call for its violent overthrow - not
> because it was
> revolutionary; but because it was, as he phrased it,
> 'counter-revolutionary' and 'reactionary'".
>
> "Overnight, many of the older anti-Bolshevik
> crusaders
> abandoned their former pro-Czarist and openly
> counter-revolutionary
> propaganda line, and adopted the new, streamlined
> Trotskyiete device of attacking
> the Russian revolution 'from the Left'. In the
> following years it became
> an accepted thing for a Lord Rothermere or a William
> Randolph Hearst to
> accuse Joseph Stalin of 'betraying the
> Revolution'......"
>
> "Trotsky's first major propaganda work to introduce
> this new
> anti-Soviet line to the international
> counter-revolution was his
> melodramatic, semi-fictional autobiography, My Life.
> First published as a
> series of anti-Soviet articles by Trotsky in
> European and American
> newspapers, its aim as a book was to vilify Stalin
> and the Soviet Union,
> increase the prestige of the Trotskyst movement and
> bolster the myth of Trotsky as
> the 'world revolutionary'. Trotsky depicted himself
> in My Life as the
> real inspirer and organiser of the Russian
> revolution, who had been
> somehow tricked out of his rightful place as
> Russia's leader by 'crafty','mediocre'
> and 'Asiatic' oponents".
>
> "Anti-Soviet agents and publicists immediately
> ballyhooed
> Trotsky's book into a sensational world wide
> best-seller which was said to
> tell the 'inside story' of the Russian revolution".
>
> "Adolf Hitler read Trotsky's autobiography as soon
> as it was
> published. Hitler's biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells
> in Der Fuehrer how
> the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in
> 1930 by bursting into
> rapturous praise of Trotsky's book. "Brilliant"
> cried Hitler, waving Trotsky's My Life at
> his followers, 'I have learned a great deal from it,
> and so can you!'."
>
> "Trotsky's book soon became a textbook for the
> anti-Soviet
> Intelligence Service. It was accepted as a basic
> guide for propaganda
> against the Soviet regime. The Japanese secret
> police made it compulsory
> reading for imprisoned Japanese and Chinese
> Communists, in an effort to
> break down their morale and to convince them that
> Soviet Russia had betrayed
> the Chinese Revolution and the cause for which they
> were fighting. The
> Gestapo made similar use of the book......"
>
> "My Life was only the opening shot in Trotsky's
> prodigious
> anti-Soviet propaganda campaign. It was followed by
> 'The Revolution
> Betrayed', 'Soviet Economy in Danger', 'The Failure
> of the Five Year Plan',
> 'Stalin and the Chinese Revolution', 'The Stalin
> School of Falsification',
> and countless other anti-Soviet books, pamphlets and
> articles, many of
> which first appeared under glaring headlines in
> reactionary newspapers in Europe and
> America. Trotsky's 'Bureau' supplied a continuous
> stream of
> 'revelations', 'exposures' and 'inside stories'
> about Russia for the
> anti-Soviet world press".
>
> TROTSKY"S LIES TOO MUCH EVEN FOR IMPERIALIST PRESS
>
> As time went on, Trotsky became more and more
> embittered and
> frustrated. 'The final debacle of the Russian Fifth
> column at the Moscow
> Trial of the bloc of the Rights and Trotskyites' say
> Kahn and Sayers,
> "was a stunning blow to Trotsky. A note of
> desperation and hysteria began
> to dominate his writings. His propaganda against the
> Soviet Union grew
> increasingly reckless, contradictory and
> extravagant. He talked
> incessantly of his own'historical rightness'. His
> attacks against Joseph Stalin
> lost all semblance of reason. He wrote articles
> asserting that the
> Soviet leader derived sadistic pleasure from
> 'blowing smoke' in the faces
> of infants.
> More and more, his consuming personal hatred of
> Stalin
> became the dominating force in TRotsky's life. He
> set his secretaries to work in
> a massive,vituperative 'Life of Stalin'....".
>
> Isaac Deutcher Trotsky's Trotskyst biographer, gives
> this
> account of Trotsky's literary activities in the last
> years of his life:
>
> "Financial difficulties led him to a strange quarrel
> with
> Life magazine. At the end of September 1939 ... one
> of Life's editors came to
> Coyoacan (Trotsky's Mexican fortress) and
> commissioned him to write
> an article on Lenin's death (Trotsky had just
> finished the Chapter in his
> book 'Stalin' suggesting that Stalin had poisoned
> Lenin, and this version
> was to be published in Life). His first article
> appeared in the
> magazine on 2nd October. Although it contained
> relatively inoffensive
> reminiscences, the article raised the ire of
> pro-Stalin 'liberals' who flooded
> Life with vituperative protests. Life printed some
> of these to the
> annoyance of Trotsky, who maintained that the
> protests had come from a
> @GPU factory' in New York, and were defamatory of
> him. He nevertheless sent
> in his second article, the one on Lenin's death; but
> Life refused to
> publish it. Ironically, the objections of the
> editors were reasonable
> enough; they found Trotsky' surmise that Stalin had
> poisoned Lenin unconvincing
> and they demanded from him ' less conjecture and
> more unquestionable
> facts'. He threatened to sue Life for breach of
> contract, and in a huff
> submitted the article to Saturday Evening Post and
> Colliers, where he
> again met with refusals, until Liberty finally
> published it. It is sad to
> see how much time in his last year the irate and
> futile correspondence
> took. In the end Life paid him the fee for the
> rejected article". (Deutscher,
> 'The ProfetOutcast', page 446).
>
> Trotsky's biography of Stalin is a collection of
> brooding
> gossip slung together in a manner so sensationalist,
> so scurrilous and
> patently hysterical and devoid of foundation, as not
> to be acceptable
> - not only to the imperialist press organs but even
> to his doting
> biographer, IsaacDeutscher, who finds it prudent to
> concede:
>
> ".....in composing the portrait (of Stalin), he uses
> abundantly and far too often the material of
> inference, guess and hearsay. he
> picks up a piece of gossip or rumour if only it
> shows a trait of cruelty or
> suggests treachery in the young Djugashvili. He
> gives credence to Stalin's
> choolmates and later enemies who, in reminiscences
> about their
> childhood, written in exile thirty or more years
> after the events,
> say that the boy Saso'had only a sarcastic sneer for
> the joys and sorrows of his
> fellows'....or that from 'his youth the carrying out
> of vengeful plots become for
> him a goal that dominated all his efforts'. He cites
> Stalin's adversaries
> who depict the youngster and the mature man as
> almost an agent
> provocateur.......There is no need to go into many
> examples of this approach. The most
> striking is, of course, Trotsky's suggestion that
> Stalin had poisoned Lenin"
> (Deutscher,ibid, page 453)
>
> Deutscher is unable to reconcile himself to
> Trotsky's
> caricature of Stalin. So much had the allegedly
> brilliant Trotsky degenerated by
> 1939 that even his admirers and idolaters felt
> uncomfortable and
> embarrassed by his literary activity. Deutscher
> finds Trotsky's depiction of
> Stalin "implausible" because:
>
> "The monster does not form, grow and emerge. He is
> almost
> fully fledged from the outset. Any better qualities
> and emotions....without
> which no young man would ever join a persecuted
> revolutionary party, are almost
> totally absent. Stalin's rise within the party is
> not due to merit or
> achievement; and so his career becomes very nearly
> inexplicable. His election
> to Lenin's Politburo, his presence in the Bolshevik
> inner cabinet, and
> his appointment to the post of General Secretary
> appear quite fortuitous."
> (Ibid, page 455)
>
>
> >From 1929 to 20 August 1940, the day he died,
> Trotsky
> rendered an anti-communist lackey-service of
> inestimable proportions to
> the imperialist propaganda machine, and while
> departing from this world, he
> fittingly entrusted his archieves to the imperialist
> bourgeosie.
> Whereas Marx had given everything to Engels, the
> latter passed everything on
> to the German Social Democratic Party (revolutionary
> at the time).
> Likewise, Lenin and Stalin bequeathed everything to
> the Bolshevik Party.
> Trotsky sold his archieves to Harvard University for
> $15.000 dollars, where
> they continue to be used as 'research' material in
> the ceaseless
> anti-communist propaganda ofinternational
> imperialism.
>
> And during all this period, Trotsky's anti-communist
> literary activity was supplemented by practical
> activity, meticulously
> co-ordinated through intimate ties between Trotsky's
> so-called Fourth
> International and the AxisFifth Column network. Let
> Kahn and Sayers take up the story:
>
> "From the fortified Coyoacan villa, Trotsky directed
> his
> world wide anti-Soviet organisation , the Fourth
> International....."
>
> "Throughout Europe, Asia and North and South
> America,
> intimate ties existed between the Fourth
> International and the Axis Fifth Column
> network:-
>
> IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA: Trotskyites were working in
> collaboration
> with the Nazi agent Konrad Henlein and his Sudeten
> Deutsche Partei (German
> Sudeten Party).
> Sergei Bessonov, the Trostskyite courier who had
> been a
> counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Berlin,
> testified when he was on trial in
> 1938 that in the summer of 1935 he had established
> connections in Prague with
> Konrad Henlein. Bessonov stated that he personally
> had acted as an
> intermediary between Henlein's group and Leon
> Trotsky.
>
> IN FRANCE: Jacques Doriot, Nazi agent and founder of
> the
> fascist Popular Party, was a renegade Communist and
> Trotskyite. Doriot
> worked closely, as did other Nazi agents and French
> fascists, with the French
> section of the Trotskyite Fourth International.
>
> IN SPAIN: Trotskyiets permeated the ranks of the
> POUM, the
> Fifth Column organisation which was aiding Franco's
> Fascist uprising.
> The head of the POUM was Andreas Nin, Trotsky's old
> friend and ally.
>
> IN CHINA: Trotskyites were operating under the
> direct
> supervision of the Japanese Military Intelligence.
> Their work was highly
> regarded by leading Japanese Intelligence officers.
> The chief of the Japanese
> espionage service in Peiping stated in 1937:" We
> should support the group of
> Trotskyites and promote their success, so that their
> activities in various
> parts of China may benefit and advantage the Empire,
> for these Chinese are
> destructive to the unity of the country. They work
> with remarkable finesse
> and skill".
>
> IN JAPAN: Trotskyites were called the 'brain trust
> of
> service'. They instructed Japanese secret agents at
> special schools on the
> techniques of penetrating the Communist Party in
> Soviet Russia and of
> combatting anti-fascist activities in China and
> Japan.
>
> IN SWEDEN: Nils Hyg, one of the leading Trotskyites,
> had
> received a financial subsidy from the pro-Nazi
> financier and swindler,
> Ivan Kreuger.The facts of Kreuger's subsidation of
> the Trotskyite
> movement were made public after Kreuger's suicide,
> when the auditors found
> among his papers recepits from all sorts of
> political adventurers, including
> Adolf Hitler.
>
> "Throughout the world, the Trotskyites had become
> the
> instruments by which the Axis intelligence services
> sought to penetrate the
> liberal, radical and labour movements for their own
> ends" (The Great Conspiracy,
> pp. 331-2)
>
> The same authors (Kahn and Sayers) emphasise that
> even after
> Trotsky's death, the Fourth International continued
> its fifth columnactivities. After
> giving examples from Britain and America, they add:
>
> The American foreign correspondent, Paul Ghali of
> the
> Chicago Daily News, reported from Switzerland on
> September 28, 1944, that
> Hienrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo, was making
> use of the European
> Trotskyites as part of the planned Nazi underground
> for post-war sabotage and
> intrigue. Ghali reported that fascist youth
> organisations were being trained
> in Trotskyite 'Marxism', supplied with false papers
> and arms and left
> behind Allied lines with orders to infiltrate the
> Communist Parties in the
> liberated areas. In France, Ghali revealed, members
> of Joseph Darnand's fascist
> Militia were being armed by the Nazis for terrorism
> and post-war Fifth
> Column activities. 'This scum of the French
> population', Ghali's report added,
> 'is being now trained for Bolshevik activity in the
> tradition of Trotsky's
> International under the personal orders of Hienrich
> Himmler. Their work
> is to sabotage allied communication lines and
> assassinate French Gaullist
> politicians. They are being instructed to tell their
> fellow countrymen
> that the present day Soviet Union represents only a
> bourgeois deformation of
> Lenin's original principles and that it is high time
> to return to sound
> Bolshevik ideology.
> This formation of groups of red terrorists is
> Himmler's most
> recent policy, aimed at creating a fourth
> international, amply contaminated
> by Nazi germs".
>
> TROTSKYISM AS FORE-RUNNER OF MACARTHYISM
>
> In 1939, Trotsky was in touch with the Congressional
> Committee headed byRepresentative Martin Dies of
> Texas. Set up to investigate
> un-Americanactivities, the Committee had become a
> forum for anti-Soviet
> propaganda.Trotsky was invited to testify as an
> 'expert witness' on the
> menace of Moscow. The New York Times of 8 December
> 1939 quoted Trotsky
> as saying tha the considered it his political duty
> to testify before the
> Dies Committee.
> Arrangements were discussed for Trotsky's travel to
> the US.''


The Spanish Civil War. You orginally asserted that the 'Stalinists' blew the Revolution, or somehow the 'Trotskyites' contributed more. I've proved this to be totally wrong, and perhaps under Trotsky's 'Military Discipline' the workers wouldn't of been motivated to raise so much money. But I'm not into what if's like you appear to be so I'm going to deal with what happened rather than what might of. And I've clearly shown you what happened.

''Wow at least you acknowledge some error concerning the Stalinist policies in pre-Nazi Germany. Its a start I guess, or at least a start for a Stalinist.''

Well ofcourse a mistake was made. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong on some things or Stalin (or rather the Comintern) made a mistake. The same unfournatly cannot be said about you, in this thread atleast. I've responded to everything you've said (like you 'insisted') and you haven't refuted a single part of it.

Now when 'you have time' please do that.

I will respond to the rest when I have more time.

[/quote]

[Invader Zim]

Stalinist propaganda strikes again...

Where next?? In OI, Politics even chit chat.

Place your bets now!!!

[Cassius Clay]

AK47 when will you ever come up with a post which actually has a point? I note that you can't actually refute any of this 'Stalinist propaganda' just come up with some sarcasm.

'Stalinist propaganda' will 'strike again' and infact 'again'. Paul Robeson, Einstein, Brecht, Che and W.E.B Doubious were all 'victim' of this 'propaganda', but let me guess you know more than they did. In Ecuador the people elected a 'bunch of Stalinists' were they 'victim' of 'propaganda'.

[komsomol]

I at least congratulate you on supposedly not holding your leaders beyond criticism, and I assure you that I for one do not hold Lenin and Trotsky beyond criticism either. I must say that your simplified generalisation could just as easily be reversed to Stalinists and Maoist groups.
I have to write briefly on only a few points at this time, but I nevertheless think these are important and clear.
You say that Trotsky was an economic determinist, well I agree to some degree, since consciousness is determined by environment, but I do not think that he was simply this and he was taking the Leninist position of a Proletarian insurrection while Stalin (and many other Bolsheviks) took the dogmatic view of the Mensheviks, that they shouldn't take action in the near future.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 4:49 pm on May 22, 2003
AK47 when will you ever come up with a post which actually has a point? I note that you can't actually refute any of this 'Stalinist propaganda' just come up with some sarcasm.

'Stalinist propaganda' will 'strike again' and infact 'again'. Paul Robeson, Einstein, Brecht, Che and W.E.B Doubious were all 'victim' of this 'propaganda', but let me guess you know more than they did. In Ecuador the people elected a 'bunch of Stalinists' were they 'victim' of 'propaganda'.




Let me ask you a couple of un-biased genuine questions.

1. Do you think Stalin's Russia was socialist.
2. Do you believe in "socialism in one country"
3. If socialism really existed in eastern Europe why did people seem to happy at it's collapse
4. Do you think Lenin would have recognised Stalin's Russia as the kind of societ he had enviseged.
5.If Trotsky was so reactionery and anti-Lenin, why was he lenin's main comrade during October, when Stalin was an unimportant figure.

Go on, convince me.

[Cassius Clay]

''Let me ask you a couple of un-biased genuine questions.''

Sure perhaps you then might want to respond to the thread though, like how Trots openly collobarted with Fascism during the war.

''1. Do you think Stalin's Russia was socialist.''

First of all it was the USSR and second of all it wasn't 'Stalin's'. But yes the USSR during this period was Socialist, just ask Trotsky himself who said.

''Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counterrevolutionary coup d'etat that would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war''

''2. Do you believe in "socialism in one country"

Bad question. Yes I believe in it since history has proved it worked, in the USSR and in Albania and perhaps to a lesser extent Cuba. 'Socialism in one country' is the basis of internationalism, that's why half the world was Red by 1953. Stalin and USSR stuck by internationalism, read Stalin's letters to Molotov on the British General Strike in 1926.

''3. If socialism really existed in eastern Europe why did people seem to happy at it's collapse''

When did I ever say 'socialism existed in eastern Europe'? Yes there were progressive steps made and the basis of socialism was built (for lack of a better word) but it was destroyed in the 50's when revisionism reared it's ugly head and set about creating Capitalism. The people were happy to get rid of it through a number of reasons, the USSR was intervering in their nation's soveriegnty, the 'hardline' nature of the regimes, there were inequalites in society (such as 15,000 millionaires in USSR by 1975 alone) and the fact that they were allready living under a form of Capitalism for example Polish workers worked for West German wine companys. This is not to say the former 'Socialist' regimes in Eastern Europe weren't more progressive that the Captitalism that exists today. In the former GDR some places have 30% unemployment and there's Neo-Nazi gangs running around unleashing terror on workers. In Russia 11 million have died since 1990 as a direct result of Capitalism, Latvia inprisons veteran anti-Fascist fighters and Lithuania has 13% unemployed.

It's a difficult question you post there, but the answer is not so simple as to say it must be either A or B and if it's not B then it must be A. Rather it was C.


''4. Do you think Lenin would have recognised Stalin's Russia as the kind of societ he had enviseged.''

Yes.

''5.If Trotsky was so reactionery and anti-Lenin, why was he lenin's main comrade during October, when Stalin was an unimportant figure.''

Erm he wasn't. Stalin wasn't a 'uinmportant figure' read the thread and you'll see that. In reality Stalin and plenty of others had to deal with the mess Trotsky left behind in pratically every episode he was involved in. There was a reason the military demanded 'no involvement' from Trotsky and he was a minority in the Central Committe.

Anyway now you can kindly respond to the points made throughout the thread since I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I once again want to post my severe displeasure to all of our comrades who condemn Stalin with little or no evidence, just some words exchanged between bitter old men. Lets look at facts. What would you have done with Trotsky?? I would have made the same decision as Stalin. In order to not jeopardise the movement tough decisions must be made. Sometimes you are right, and others, well to put it mildly, people die. I peronally believe Stalin was correct about Trotsky. You have your facts painting Stalin as a facist and we have our facts painting him as devine. I'm sure he was neither.

Did you know that Stalin was the third gunman on the grassy knoll? Yeah mates, he killed Kennedy Too. So that makes 20 million and one now eh??

cheers

[Sandanista]

Trotsky, besides Marx and Lenin was the greatest Socialist ever

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from Sandanista on 9:07 pm on June 5, 2003
Trotsky, besides Marx and Lenin was the greatest Socialist ever

Oh dear God. Have you read any of this thread?

The man who wanted to use Fascist methods for no reason, the man who Lenin wrote entire articles on exposing what a reactionary fool he was, the man who ordered his supporters to colloborate with Fascism and slaughter workers and peasants, the man who got less than 6000 votes out of over 725,000 votes cast in a perfectly fair election, the man who was willing to become FBI informant? That's your 'greatest Socialist ever'.

Well it just goes to show what a reactionary ideology Trotskyism is.

[El Che]

Inane babble, sterile gibberish.

Blah, blah, blah.

[Sandanista]

What the fuck are u on about Cassius? ever heard of stalinist propaganda????

Fuck sake even if trotsky was gonna be an FBI informer, he was quite justified,Stalin was an evil imperialist dictator.

[Cassius Clay]

Yes because there's been so much 'Stalinist propaganda' in the world for the last 50 years hasn't there. Can you actually refute any of this 'Stalinist propaganda'? Have you even bothered? No all you come up with 'Trotsky was the greatest Socialist ever' and 'Stalin was an evil Imperialist dictator'.

Well that convinced me, how have I been blind to this truth for so long?

[Bianconero]

"the man who Lenin wrote entire articles on exposing what a reactionary fool he was"

Cassius, could you maybe provide a link to one of these articles, please?

[Cassius Clay]

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY

POST #1

It is very important to note that the following statements about Trotsky’s ideas, tactics, and personality were made by Lenin, not Stalin.

At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P in 1903 Lenin said in the Third Speech in the Discussion on the Agrarian Programme,
“Therein lies the fundamental difference between us and the liberals, whose talk about changes and reforms ‘pollutes’ the minds of the people. If we were to set forth in detail all the demands for the abolition of serf-ownership, we should fill whole volumes. That is why we mention only the more important forms and varieties of serfdom, and leave it to our committees in the various localities to draw up and advance their particular demands in development of the general programme. Trotsky’s remark to the effect that we cannot concern ourselves with local demand is wrong, for the question...is not only a local one.”

At the same Congress Lenin made an extremely important and farsighted comment with respect to Trotsky’s theoretical wisdom. He stated,
“To come to the main subject, I must say that Comrade Trotsky has completely misunderstood Comrade Plekhanov’s fundamental idea, and his arguments have therefore evaded the gist of the matter. He has spoken of intellectuals and workers, of the class point of view and of the mass movement, but he has failed to notice a basic question: does my formulation narrow or expand the concept of a Party member? If he had asked himself that question, he would have easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov’s expands it, for (to use Martov’s own correct expression) what distinguishes his concept is its ‘elasticity.’ And in the period of Party life that we are now passing through it is just this ‘elasticity’ that undoubtedly opens the door to all elements of confusion, vacillation, and opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion it has to be proved that there are no such elements; but it has not even occurred to Comrade Trotsky to do that. Nor can that be proved, for everyone knows that such elements exist in plenty, and they are to be found in the working class too....
Comrade Trotsky completely misinterpreted the main idea of my book, What Is To Be Done? when he spoke about the Party not being a conspiratorial organization. He forgot that in my book I propose a number of various types of organizations, from the most secret and most exclusive to comparatively broad and ‘loose’ organizations. He forgot that the Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast masses of the working class, the whole (or nearly the whole) of which works ‘under the control and direction’ of the Party organizations, but the whole of which does not and should not belong to a ‘party.’ Now let us see what conclusions Comrade Trotsky arrives at in consequence of his fundamental mistake. He had told us here that if rank after rank of workers were arrested, and all the workers were to declare that they did not belong to the Party, our Party would be a strange one indeed! Is it not the other way round? Is it not Comrade Trotsky’s argument that is strange? He regards as something sad that which a revolutionary with any experience at all would only rejoice at. If hundreds and thousands of workers who were arrested for taking part in strikes and demonstrations did not prove to be members of Party organizations, it would only show that we have good organizations, and that we are fulfilling our task of keeping a more or less limited circle of leaders secret and drawing the broadest possible masses into the movement.”

In an article written in 1905 entitled “Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government” Lenin spoke of Parvus and said,
“He openly advocated (unfortunately, together with the windbag Trotsky in a foreward to the latter’s bombastic pamphlet ‘Before the Ninth of January’) the idea of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, the idea that it was the duty of Social-Democrats to take part in the provisional revolutionary government after the overthrow of the autocracy.”

Later in the same article Lenin stated,
“It would be extremely harmful to entertain any illusions on this score. If that windbag Trotsky now writes (unfortunately, side by side with Parvus) that a Father Gapon could appear only once,’ that ‘there is no room for a second Gapon,’ he does so simply because he is a windbag. If there were no room in Russia for a second Gapon, there would be no room for a truly ‘great’ consummated democratic revolution.”

In a 1904 letter to Stasova, Lengnik, and others Lenin stated,
A new pamphlet by Trotsky came out recently, under the editorship of *Iskra*, as was announced. This makes it the “Credo” as it were of the new Iskra. The pamphlet is a pack of brazen lies, a distortion of the facts.... The pamphlet is a slap in the face both for the present Editorial Board of the C.O. and for all Party workers. Reading a pamphlet of this kind you can see clearly that the “Minority” has indulged in so much lying and falsehood that it will be incapable of producing anything viable....”

In a 1905 article entitled “Wrathful Impotence” Lenin stated,
‘We shall remind the reader that even Mr. Struve, who has often voiced sympathy in principle with Trotsky, Starover, Akimov, and Martynov, and with the new-Iskra trends in general and the new-Iskra Conference in particular--even Mr. Struve was in his time obliged to acknowledge that their stand is not quite a correct one, or rather quite an incorrect one.”

At the 1907 Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P Lenin stated,
“A few words about Trotsky. He spoke on behalf of the ‘Centre,’ and expressed the views of the Bund. He fulminated against us for introducing our ‘unacceptable’ resolution. He threatened an outright split, the withdrawal of the Duma group, which is supposedly offended by our resolution. I emphasize these words. I urge you to reread our resolution.... When Trotsky stated: ‘Your unacceptable resolution prevents your right ideas being put into effect,’ I called out to him: ‘Give us your resolution!’ Trotsky replied: ‘No first withdraw yours.’ A fine position indeed for the ‘Centre’ to take, isn’t it? Because of our (in Trotsky’s opinion) mistake (‘tactlessness’) he punishes the whole Party.... Why did you not get your resolution passed, we shall be asked in the localities. Because the Centre (for whom Trotsky was speaking) took umbrage at it, and in a huff refused to set forth its own principles! That is a position based not on principle, but on the Centre’s lack of principle.”

Speaking at the same Congress Lenin objected to Trotsky’s amendments to the Bolshevik resolution on the attitude towards bourgeois parties by saying,
“It must be agreed that Trotsky’s amendment is not Menshevik, that it expresses the ‘very same,’ that is, bolshevik, idea. But Trotsky has expressed this idea in a way that is scarcely better (than the Menshevik--Ed.).... Trotsky’s insertion is redundant, for we are not fishing for unique cases in the resolution, but are laying down the basic line of Social-Democracy in the bourgeois Russian revolution.”

While later discussing the same issue (the attitude the party should have toward bourgeois parties) Lenin said,
“The question of the attitude of Social-Democracy towards bourgeois parties is one of those known as ‘general’ or ‘theoretical’ questions, i.e., such that are not directly connected with any definite practical task confronting the Party at a given moment. At theLondon Congress of the R.S.D.L.P, the Mensheviks and the Bundists conducted a fierce struggle against the inclusion of such questions in the agenda, and they were, unfortunately, supported in this by Trotsky, who does not belong to either side. The opportunistic wing of our Party (notice that that is the group with which Trotsky allied himself--Ed.) like that of other Social-Democratic parties, defended a ‘business-like’ or ‘practical’ agenda for the Congress. They shied away from ‘broad and general’ questions. They forgot that in the final analysis broad, principled politics are the only real, practical politics. They forgot that anybody who tackles partial problems without having previously settled general problems, will inevitably and at every step ‘come up against’ those general problems without himself realizing it. To come up against them blindly in every individual case means to doom one’s politics to the worst vacillation and lack of principle.”
And it is quite clear to which philosophy Trotsky adhered.


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #2

Our list of statements about Trotsky by Lenin continues:

In 1909 Lenin wrote an article entitled “The Aim of the Proletarian Struggle in our Revolution” and said the following,
“As for Trotsky, whom Comrade Martov has involved in the controversy of third parties which he has organized...we positively cannot go into a full examination of his views here. A separate article of considerable length would be needed for this. By just touching upon Trotsky’s mistaken views, and quoting scraps of them, Comrade Martov only sows confusion in the mind of the reader.... Trotsky’s major mistake is that he ignores the bourgeois character of the revolution and has no clear conception of the transition from this revolution to the socialist revolution. This major mistake leads to those mistakes on side issues which Comrade Martov repeats when he quotes a couple of them with sympathy and approval. Not to leave matters in the confused state to which Comrade Martov has reduced them by his exposition, we shall at least expose the fallacy of those arguments of Trotsky which have won approval of Comrade Martov.”

Later in the same article Lenin states,
“Trotsky’s second statement quoted by Comrade Martov is wrong too. It is not true that ‘the whole question is, who will determine the government’s policy, who will constitute a homogeneous majority in it,’ and so forth. And it is particularly untrue when Comrade Martov uses it as an argument against the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Trotsky himself, in the course of his argument, concedes that ‘representatives of the democratic population will take part’ in the ‘workers’ government,’ i.e., concedes that there will be a government consisting of representatives of the proletariat AND the peasantry.
On what terms the proletariat will take part in the government of the revolution is quite another question, and it is quite likely that on this question the Bolsheviks will disagree not only with Trotsky, but also with the Polish Social-Democrats.”
Notice how Lenin does not consider Trotsky to be a bolshevik.

And finally, Lenin also states in the same article,
“In any case, Comrade Martov’s conclusion that the conference agreed with Trotsky, of all people, on the question of the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry in the struggle for power is an amazing contradiction of the facts, is an attempt to read into a word a meaning that was never discussed, not mentioned, and not even thought of at the conference.”

In 1910 Lenin wrote several articles in which he said the following:
Article= “Faction of Supporter of Otzovism and God-Building” in which he said,
“The ‘point’ was that the Mensheviks (through the mouth of Trotsky in 1903-04) had to declare: the old Iskra and the new ones are poles apart.”

Article= “Notes of a Publicist” in which he said,
“With touching unanimity the liquidators and the otzovists are abusing the Bolsheviks up hill and down dale. The Bolsheviks are to blame, the Bolshevik Centre is to blame.... But the strongest abuse from Axelrod and Alexinsky only serves to screen their complete failure to understand the meaning and importance of Party unity. Trotsky’s resolution only differs outwardly from the ‘effusions’ of Axelrod and Alexinsky. It is drafted very ‘cautiously’ and lays claim to ‘above faction’ fairness. But what is its meaning? The ‘Bolshevik leaders’ are to blame for everything--this is the same ‘philosophy of history’ as that of Axelrod and Alexinsky....
This question needs only to be put for one to see how hollow are the eloquent phrases in Trotsky’s resolution, to see how in reality they serve to defend the very position held by Axelrod and Co., and Alexinsky and Co.... In the very first words of his resolution Trotsky expressed the full spirit of the worst kind of conciliation, “conciliation” in inverted commas, or a sectarian and philistine conciliation....
It is in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism, which consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the‘conciliation’ of Trotsky and Co., which actually renders the most faithful service to the liquidators and otzovists, and is therefore *an evil* that is all the more dangerous to the Party the more cunningly, artfully and rhetorically it cloaks itself with professedly pro-Party, professedly anti-factional declamations.”
Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 16, pages 209-211

Later Lenin stated, “The draft of this resolution was submitted to the Central Committee by myself, and the clause in question was altered by the plenum itself after the commission had finished its work; it was altered on the motion of Trotsky, against whom I fought without success.”
Ibid. page 215

And this was later followed by,
“Here you have the material--little, but characteristic material--which makes it clear how empty Trotsky’s and Yonov’s phrases are.”

Referring to Trotsky’s stance while discussing liquidationism Lenin says,
“Of this we shall speak further on, where it be our task to demonstrate the utter superficiality of the view taken by Trotsky....”

In another stinging indictment in the same article Lenin says,
“Hence the ‘conciliatory’ efforts of Trotsky and Yonov are not ridiculous and miserable. These efforts can only be explained by a complete failure to understand what is taking place. They are harmless efforts now, for there is no one behind them except the sectarian diplomats abroad, except ignorance and lack of intelligence in some out-of-the-way places.”

Continuing in the same vein, Lenin states,
“The heinous crime of *spineless ‘conciliators’* like Yonov and Trotsky, who defend or justify these people, is that they are causing their ruin by making them more dependent on liquidationism....
That this position of Yonov and Trotsky is wrong should have been obvious to them for the simple reason that it is refuted by facts.”

In an article entitled “How certain Social-Democrats Inform the International About the State of Affairs in the R.S.D.L.P.” Lenin stated,
“Yes, it is the ‘non-factional’ Comrade Trotsky, who has no compunction about openly advertising his faction’s propaganda sheet.”

In an article written in 1910 entitled “An Open Letter to All Pro-Party Social-Democrats” Lenin said about Trotsky,
“If Trotsky and similar advocates of the liquidators and otzovists declare this rapprochement ‘devoid of political content,’ such speeches testify only to Trotsky’s *entire lack of principle*, the real hostility of his policy to the policy of the actual (and not merely confined to promises) abolition of factions.”


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #3
Our list of denunciations of Trotsky by Lenin continues:

In a 1911 letter “To the Central Committee” Lenin said,
“We resume our freedom of struggle against the liberals and *anarchists*, who are being encouraged by the leader of the ‘conciliators,’ Trotsky. The question of the money is for us a secondary matter, although of course we do not intend to hand over the money of the faction to the bloc of liquidators+anarchists+Trotsky, while in no way renouncing our right to expose before the international Social-Democratic movement this bloc, its financial ‘basis’ (the notorious Vperyodist ‘funds’ safeguarded from exposure by Trotsky and the Golosists).”

Later Lenin says,
“There has been a full development of what was already outlined quite clearly at the plenum (for instance, *the defence of the anarchist school, by Trotsky* + the Golosists). The bloc of liberals and anarchists with the aid of the conciliators is shamelessly destroying the remnants of the Party from outside and helping to demoralize it from within. The formalistic game of ‘inviting’ the Golosists and Trotskyists on to the central bodies is finally reducing to impotence the already weakened pro-Party elements.”


In a 1911 article entitled “Historical Meaning of Inner-Party Struggle in Russia” Lenin commented,
“The theory that the struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism is a struggle for influence over an immature proletariat is not a new one. We have been encountering it since 1905 in innumerable books, pamphlets, and articles in the liberal press. Martov and Trotsky are putting before the German comrades *liberal views with a Marxist coating*....”
Trotsky declares: ‘It is an illusion’ to imagine that Menshevism and Bolshevism ‘have struck deep roots in the depths of the proletariat.’ This is a specimen of the resonant but empty phrases of which our Trotsky is a master. The roots of the divergence between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks lie, not in the ‘depths of the proletariat,’ but in the economic content of the Russian revolution. By ignoring this content, Martov and Trotsky have deprived themselves of the possibility of understanding the historical meaning of the inner-Party struggle in Russia.”

Later in the same article Lenin states,
“For the same reason Trotsky’s argument that splits in the International Social-Democratic movement are caused by the ‘process of adaptation of the social-revolutionary class to the limited (narrow) conditions of parliamentarism,’ while in the Russian Social-Democratic movement they are caused by the adaptation of the intelligentsia to the proletariat, is *absolutely false*.
Trotsky writes.... This truly ‘unrestrained’ phrase-mongering is merely the ‘ideological shadow’ of liberalism. Both Martov and Trotsky mix up different historical periods and compare Russia, which is going through her bourgeois revolution, with Europe, where these revolutions were completed long ago.”

Subsequently Lenin says,
“As regards boycotting the trade unions and the local self-government bodies, what Trotsky says is *absolutely untrue*. It is equally untrue to say that boycottism runs through the whole history of Bolshevism.... *Trotsky distorts Bolshevism*, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution.”

In the same article Lenin said regarding Trotsky,
“It is not true. And this untruth expresses, firstly, *Trotsky’s utter lack of theoretical understanding*. Trotsky has absolutely failed to understand why the plenum described both liquidationism and otzovism as a ‘manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat’.
Secondly, in practice, this untruth expresses the ‘policy’ of advertisement pursued by Trotsky’s faction. That Trotsky’s venture is an attempt to create a faction is now obvious to all, since Trotsky has removed the Central Committee’s representative from Pravda. In advertising his faction Trotsky does not hesitate to tell the Germans that the Party is falling to pieces, that both factions are falling to pieces and that he, Trotsky, alone, is saving the situation. Actually, we all see now--and the latest resolution adopted by the Trotskyists in the name of the Vienna Club, on November 26, 1910 proves this quite conclusively--that *Trotsky enjoys the confidence exclusively of the liquidators and the Vperyodists*.
The extent of *Trotsky’s shamelessness* in belittling the Party and exalting himself before the Germans is shown, for instance, by the following. Trotsky writes that the ‘working masses’ in Russia consider that the ‘Social-Democratic Party stands outside their circle’ and he talks of ‘Social-Democrats without Social-Democracy.
How could one expect Mr. Potresov and his friends to refrain from bestowing kisses on Trotsky for such statements?
But these statements are refuted not only by the entire history of the revolution, but even by the results of the elections to the Third Duma from the workers’ curia....
That is what Trotsky writes. But the facts are as follows....
When Trotsky gives the German comrades a detailed account of the stupidity of ‘otzovism’ and describes this trend as a ‘crystallization’ of the boycottism characteristic of Bolshevism as a whole...the German reader certainly gets no idea how much subtle *perfidy* there is in such an exposition. Trotsky’s Jesuitical ‘reservation’ consists in omitting a small, very small ‘detail.’ He ‘forgot’ to mention that at an official meeting of its representatives held as far back as the spring of 1909, the Bolshevik faction repudiated and expelled the otzovists. But it is just this ‘detail’ that is inconvenient for Trotsky, who wants to talk of the ‘falling to pieces’ of the Bolshevik faction (and then of the Party as well) and not of the falling away of the non-Social-Democratic elements!....
...Trotsky, on the other hand, represents only his own personal vacillations and nothing more. In 1903 he as a Menshevik; he abandoned Menshevism in 1904, returned to the Mensheviks in 1905 and merely flaunted ultra- revolutionary phrases; in 1906 he left them again; at the end of 1906 he advocated electoral agreements with the Cadets (i.e., he was in once more with the Mensheviks); and the spring of 1907, at the London Congress, he said that he differed from Rosa Luxemburg on “individual shades of ideas rather than on political tendencies”. One day Trotsky *plagiarizes* from the ideological stock-in-trade of one faction; the next day he plagiarizes from that of another, and therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions. In theory Trotsky is on no point in agreement with either the liquidators or the otzovists, but in actual practice he is in entire agreement with both the Golosists and the Vperyodists.
Therefore, when Trotsky tells the German comrades that he represents the ‘general Party tendency,’ I am obliged to declare that Trotsky represents only his own faction and enjoys a certain amount of confidence exclusively among the otzovists and the liquidators. The following facts prove the correctness of my statement.”

After listing his facts and referring to ‘Trotsky’s anti-Party policy’ Lenin states,
“Let the readers now judge for themselves whether Trotsky represents a ‘general Party,’ or a ‘general anti-Party’ trend in Russian Social-Democracy.”


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #4
Our on-going expose of Lenin’s Opinion of Trotsky continues:

In an article entitled “Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin attacked Trotsky by saying,
“Trotsky’s call for ‘friendly’ collaboration by the Party with the Golos and Vperyod groups is *disgusting hypocrisy and phrase-mongering*. Everybody is aware that for the whole year since the Plenary Meeting the Golos and Vperyod groups have worked in a ‘friendly’ manner against the Party (and were secretly supported by Trotsky). Actually, it is only the Bolsheviks and Plekhanov’s group who have for a whole year carried out friendly Party work in the Central Organ. Trotsky’s attacks on the bloc of Bolsheviks and Plekhanov’s group are not new; what is new is the outcome of his resolution: the Vienna Club (read “Trotsky”) has organized a ‘general Party fund for the purpose of preparing and
convening a conference of the RSDLP
This indeed is new. It is a direct step towards a split. It is *a clear violation of Party legality* and the start of an adventure in which Trotsky will come to grief. This is obviously a split.... It is quite possible and probable that ‘certain’ Vperyod ‘funds’ will be made available to Trotsky. You will appreciate that this will only stress the adventurist character of his undertaking.
It is clear that this undertaking violates Party legality, since not a word is said about the Central Committee, which alone can call the conference. In addition, Trotsky, having ousted the C.C. representative on Pravda in August 1910, himself *lost all trace of legality*, converting Pravda from an organ supported by the representative of the C.C. into a purely factional organ....
Taking advantage of this, ‘violation of legality,’ Trotsky seeks an organisational split, creating ‘his own’ fund for ‘his own’ conference.”

After this critique of Trotsky, Lenin really comes down solid on him by stating,
“You will understand why I call Trotsky’s move an adventure; it is an adventure in every respect. It is an adventure in the ideological sense. *Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism*, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the ‘Lenin-Plekhanov’ bloc, as they like to call it. *Trotsky unites all to whom ideological decay is dear*, *all who are not
concerned with the defence of Marxism*; *all philistines* who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the ‘hero of the hour’ and *gather all the shabby elements around himself*. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.
It is an adventure in the party-political sense. At present everything goes to show that the real unity of the Social-Democratic Party is possible only on the basis of a sincere and unswerving repudiation of liquidationism and otzovism. It is clear that Potresov and the Vperyod group have renounced neither the one nor the other. Trotsky unites them, basely deceiving himself, *deceiving the Party, and deceiving the proletariat*. In reality, Trotsky will achieve nothing more than the strengthening of Potresov’s and Maximov’s anti-Party groups. The collapse of this adventure is inevitable.”

And Lenin concludes by saying,
“Three slogans bring out the essence of the present situation within the Party:...
3. Struggle against the splitting tactics and the *unprincipled adventurism of Trotsky* in banding Potresov and Maximov against Social-Democracy.”

In a 1910 article entitled “The State of Affairs in the Party” Lenin again attacks Trotsky’s anti-Party stance by saying,
“...Trotsky’s statement of November 26, 1910...completely distorts the essence of the matter. Martov’s article and Trotsky’s resolution conceal definite practical actions--actions directed against the Party....
Trotsky’s resolution, which calls upon organizations inthe localities to prepare for a “general Party conference” independent of, and against, the Central Committee, expresses the very aim of the Golos group--to destroy the central bodies so detested by the liquidators, and with them, the Party as an organization. It is not enough to lay bare the anti-Party activities of Golos and Trotsky; they must be fought.

In the same article Lenin states,
“When Trotsky, in referring to the Meeting’s decisions on Pravda, fails to mention this fact, all one can say about it is that *he is deceiving the workers*. And this deception on the part of Trotsky is all the more *malicious*, since in August Trotsky removed the representative of the Central Committee from Pravda....
Therefore, we declare, in the name of the Party as a whole, that Trotsky is pursuing an anti-Party policy....
Trotsky is trying again and again to evade the question by passing it over in silence or by phrase-mongering; *for he is concerned to keep the readers and the Party ignorant of the truth*, namely that Potresov’s group, the group of sixteen, are absolutely independent of the Party, represent expressly distinct factions, are not only doing nothing to revive the illegal organization, but are obstructing its revival, and are not pursuing any Social-Democratic tactics. *Trotsky is concerned with keeping the Party ignorant of the truth*, namely, that the Golos group represent a faction abroad, similarly separated from the Party, and that they actually render service to the liquidators in Russia....
Trotsky maintains silence on this undeniable truth, because *the truth is detrimental to the real aims of his policy*. The real aims, however, are becoming clearer and more obvious even to the least far-sighted Party members. They are” an anti-Party block of the Potresovs with the Vperyod group--a bloc which Trotsky supports and is organizing.”

Lenin later states,
“We must again explain the fundamentals of Marxism to these masses; the defence of Marxist theory is again on the order of the day. When Trotsky declares that the rapprochement between the pro-Party Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks is ‘devoid of political content’ and ‘unstable,’ he is thereby merely revealing *the depths of his own ignorance*, he is thereby demonstrating *his own complete emptiness*.”

Lenin later follows this up with,
“...Trotsky, who is in the habit of joining any group that happens to be in the majority at the moment....
Trotsky’s policy is adventurism in the organisational sense; for, as we have already pointed out, it violates Party legality....”


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #5
Our continuing revelation of Lenin’s Opinion of Trotsky proceeds apace:

In a 1911 article entitled “Judas Trotsky’s Blush of Shame” Lenin states,
“At the Plenary Meeting *Judas Trotsky* made a big show of fighting liquidationism and otzovism. He vowed and swore that he was true to the Party. He was given a subsidy....
Judas expelled the representative of the Central Committee from Pravda and began to write liquidationist articles....
And it is this Judas who beats his breast and loudly professes his loyalty to the Party, claiming that he did not grovel before the Vperyod group and the liquidators.
Such is Judas Trotsky’s blush of shame.”

In a leaflet published in 1911 entitled “Resolution Adopted by the Second Paris Group of the R.S.D.L.P. on the State of Affairs in the Party” Lenin addressed this same theme by saying,
“People like Trotsky, with his inflated phrases about the R.S.D.L.P. and his *toadying* to the liquidators, who have nothing in common with the R.S.D.L.P., today represent ‘*the prevalent disease*.’ They are trying to build up a career for themselves by cheap sermons about ‘agreement’--agreement with all and sundry, right down to Mr. Potresov and the otzovists.... Actually they preach surrender to the liquidators who are building a Stolypin labour party.”

And in the 1911 article entitled “From the Camp of the Stolypin Labour Party” Lenin revisits this issue by saying,
“Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the ‘Trotskyites and conciliators’ like him are *more pernicious than any liquidators*; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the *Trotskys deceive the workers*, *cover up the evil*, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it. *Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of lying and of deceiving the workers*, a policy of shielding the liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the shielding of their deeds by ‘revolutionary’ phrase-mongering abroad--there you have the essence of the policy of ‘Trotskyism’.”


In an article entitled “The New Faction of Conciliators, or the Virtuous” Lenin stated,
Trotsky expressed conciliationism more consistently than anyone else. He was probably the only one who attempted to give the trend a theoretical foundation, namely: factions and factionalism express the struggle of the intelligentsia “for influence over the immature proletariat”.... For a long time now, Trotsky--who at one moment has wavered more to the side of the Bolsheviks and at another more to that of the Mensheviks--has been persistently carrying on propaganda for an agreement (or compromise) between all and sundry factions.
“But after it, every since the spring of 1910 Trotsky has been *deceiving the workers in a most unprincipled and shameless manner* by assuring them that the obstacles to unity were principally (if not wholly) of an organizational nature. This deceit is being continued in 1911 by the Paris conciliators; for to assert now that they organizational questions occupy the first place is sheer mockery of the truth. In reality, it is by no means the organizational question that is now in the forefront, but the question of the entire programme, the entire tactics and the whole character of the Party.... The conciliators call themselves Bolsheviks, in order to repeat, a year and a half later, *Trotsky’s errors* which the Bolsheviks had exposed. Well, is this not an abuse of established Party titles? Are we not obliged, after this, to let all and sundry know that the conciliators are not Bolsheviks at all, that they have nothing in common with Bolshevism, that they are simply inconsistent Trotskyites?
The only difference between Trotsky and the conciliators in Paris is that the latter regard Trotsky as a factionalist and themselves as non-factionalist, whereas Trotsky holds the opposite view....
Trotsky provides us with an abundance of instances of scheming to establish unprincipled “unity....
Trotsky was merely revealing the plan of the liquidators whom he serves faithfully....”

In a 1911 article on the same theme entitled “Trotsky’s Diplomacy and a certain Party Platform,” Lenin states,
“Trotsky’s particular task is to conceal liquidationism by throwing dust in the eyes of the workers.
It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because *Trotsky holds no views whatever*. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists;; but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a *diplomat of the smallest caliber*.”

In an article entitled “Fundamental Problems of the Election Campaign” Lenin states,
“There is nothing more repugnant to the spirit of Marxism than phrase-mongering....”

And later on he states,
“But there is no point in imitating Trotsky’s inflated phrases.”

In a 1912 pamphlet entitled “The Present Situation in the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin stated,“
This is incredible, yet it is a fact. It will be useful for the Russian workers to know how *Trotsky and Co. are misleading our foreign comrades*.”

In another 1912 pamphlet entitled “Can the Slogan ‘Freedom of Association’ Serve as a Basis for the Working-Class Movement Today?” Lenin responds by saying,
“In the legal press, the liquidators headed by Trotsky argue that it can. They are doing all in their power to distort the true character of the workers’ movement. But those are hopeless efforts. The drowning of the liquidators are clutching at a straw to rescue their unjust cause.”

In a 1912 pamphlet entitled “Platform of the Reformists and the Platform of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats” Lenin stated,
“Look at the platform of the liquidators. Its liquidationist essence is artfully concealed by Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases.”
“The revolutionary Social-Democrats have given their answer to these questions, which are more interesting and important than the *philistine-Trotskyist* attitude of uncertainty; will there be a revolution or not, who can tell?....
Those, however, who preach to the masses their *vulgar, intellectualist, Bundist-Trotskyist scepticism*--’we don’t know whether there will be a revolution or not, but the current issue is reforms’--are already *corrupting the masses, preaching liberal utopias to them*.”

In the 1912 pamphlet entitled “The Illegal Party and Legal Work” Lenin again referred to Trotsky by saying,
“We have studied the ideas of liberal labour policy attired in Levitsky’s everyday clothes; it is not difficult to recognize them in *Trotsky’s gaudy apparel* as well.”

In a letter to the Editor of Pravda in 1912 Lenin said,
“I advise you to reply to Trotsky throught the post: ‘To Trotsky. We shall not reply to disruptive and slanderous letters.’ Trotsky’s dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander. The well-known Marxist and follower of Plekhanov, Rothstein, has written to us that he received Trotsky’s slanders and replied to him: I cannot complain of the Petersburg Pravda in any way. But this intriguer and liquidator goes onlying, right and left.
P.S. It would be still better to reply in this way to Trotsky through the post: ‘To Trotsky. You are wasting your time sending us disruptive and slanderous letters....”

In a 1913 article in Pravda Lenin really blistered Trotsky on the question of Party unity by saying,
“It is amazing that after the question has been posed so clearly and squarely we come across Trotsky’s old, pompous but perfectly meaningless phrases in Luch No. 27 (113). Not a word on the substance of the matter! *Not the slightest attempt to cite precise facts and analyze them thoroughly!* Not a hint of the real terms of unity! Empty exclamations, high-flown words, and haughty sallies against opponents whom the author does not name, and impressively important assurances--that is *Trotsky’s total stock-in-trade*.
That won’t do gentlemen.... The workers will not be intimidated or coaxed. They themselves will compare Luch and Pravda...and simply shrug off Trotsky’s verbiage....
You cannot satisfy the workers with mere phrases, no matter how ‘conciliatory’ or honeyed.
‘Our historic factions, Bolshevism and Menshevism, are purely intellectualist formations in origin,’ wrote Trotsky. This is the *repetition of a liberal tale*....
It is to the advantage of the liberals to pretend that this fundamental basis of the difference was introduced by ‘intellectuals.’ But *Trotsky merely disgraces himself by echoing a liberal tale*.

In a 1913 article entitled “Notes of a Publicist” Lenin states,
“Trotsky, doing faithful service to liquidators, assured himself and the naive ‘Europeans’ (lovers of Asiatic scandal-mongering) that the liquidators are ‘stronger’ in the legal movement. And this lie, too, is refuted by the facts.”

Lenin again blasted Trotsky in an article published in 1914 entitled “Break-up of the ‘August’ Bloc” by stating,
“Trotsky, however, has never had any ‘physiognomy’ at all; *the only thing he does have is a habit of changing sides*, of *skipping from the liberals to the Marxists and back again*, of mouthing scraps of catchwords and bombastic parrot phrases....
Actually, under cover of high-sounding, empty, and obscure phrases that confuse the non-class-conscious workers, Trotsky is defending the liquidators....
But *the liquidators and Trotsky...are the worst splitters*.”

And in an article entitled “Ideological Struggle in Working-Class Movement” Lenin states,
“People who (like the liquidators and Trotsky) ignore or falsify this twenty years’ history of the ideological struggle in the working-class movement do tremendous harm to the workers.”


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #6
Our ongoing revelation of what Lenin thought of Trotsky proceeds on schedule.

In a 1914 article named “Disruption of Unity” Lenin stated,
“Trotsky’s ‘workers’ journal’ is Trotsky’s journal for workers, as there is not a trace in it of either workers’ initiative, or any connection with working-class organizations....
The question arises: what has ‘chaos’ got to do with it? Everybody knows that *Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases*.... If there is any ‘chaos’ anywhere, it is only in the heads of cranks who fail to understand this....
And that fact proves that we right in calling Trotsky a representative of the ‘worst remnants of factionalism’. Although he claims to be non-factional, Trotsky is known to everybody who is in the least familiar with the working-class movement in Russia as the representative of ‘Trotsky’s faction’.
Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness, for his patent for ‘non-factionalism’, as we shall soon see in greater detail,is merely a patent to flit freely to and fro, from one group to another.
To sum up:
(1) Trotsky does not explain, *nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreements among the various Marxist trends and groups*, although these disagreements run through the twenty years’ history of Social-Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);
(2) Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;
(3) Under cover of ‘non-factionalism’ Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.
All that glitters is not gold. *There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless*....
But joking apart (although joking is the only way of retorting mildly to Trotsky’s insufferable phrase-mongering). ‘Suicide’ is a mere empty phrase, mere ‘Trotskyism’....
If our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong in theory, in principle, then Trotsky should say so straightforwardly, and state definitely, without equivocation, why he thinks it is wrong. But Trotsky has been evading this extremely important point for years....
Trotsky is very fond of using, with the learned air of the expert, *pompous and high-sounding phrases* to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since ‘numerous advanced workers’ become ‘active agents’ of a political and Party line which does not conform to Trotsky’s line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand: these advanced workers are ‘in a state of utter political bewilderment,’ whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently ‘in a state’ of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line! And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of intellectuals to impose their will on the workers!”
“Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself; *is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come*?
Trotsky is trying to disrupt the movement and cause a split.

Later in the same article Lenin states,
“Those who accused us of being splitters, of being unwilling or unable to get on with the liquidators, were themselves unable to get on with them. The August bloc proved to be a fiction and broke up.
By concealing this break-up from his readers, *Trotsky is deceiving them*.”

Still later, Lenin confronted a problem I have often encountered by stating,
“*The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is because they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous phrases*.... Is not this weapon borrowed from the arsenal of the period when Trotsky posed in all his splendor before audiences of high-school boys?”

And finally, in the same article Lenin shatters Trotsky, his theory of Permanent Revolution, and his all consuming equivocating, with which I am thoroughly familiar, by saying,
“Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901-03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as ‘Lenin’s cudgel.’ At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and
occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his **absurdly Left permanent revolution theory**. In 1906-07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.
In the period of disintegration, after long ‘non-factional’ vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.”

In another 1914 article entitled “Objective Data on the Strength of Various Trends” Lenin commented,
“One of the greatest, if not the greatest, faults (or crimes against the working class) of the Narodniks and liquidators, as well as of the various groups of intellectuals such as the Vperyodists, Plekhanovites and Trotskyists, is their subjectivism. At every step they try to pass off their desires, their ‘views’, their appraisals of the situation and their ‘plans’, as the will of the workers, the needs of the working-class movement.”

In a article published in 1914 entitled “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” Lenin stated,
“**The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy!** Trotsky could produce no proof, except ‘private conversations” (i.e., simply *gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists*), for classifying ‘Polish Marxists’ in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg....
Why did Trotsky withhold these facts from the readers of his journal? Only because it pays him to speculate on fomenting differences between the Polish and the Russian opponents of liquidationism and to *deceive the Russian workers* on the question of the programme.”

And now comes another comment that blows off Trotsky’s doors.
“**Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism**. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.”

In an article first published in 1917 Lenin noted that Trotsky made a number of errors by saying,
“A number of Trotsky’s tactical and organizational errors spring from this fear....”

Still later, Lenin confronted a problem I have often encountered by stating,
“*The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is because they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous phrases*.... Is not this weapon borrowed from the arsenal of the period when Trotsky posed in all his splendor before audiences of high-school boys?” It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany.... To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution made it clear that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to avoid this truth....
*Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky done a little thinking, they would have realized that they have adopted the viewpoint on the war held by governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe to the ‘political methodology of social-patriotism’, to use Trotsky’s pretentious language*.
Whoever is in favour of the slogan of ‘neither victory nor defeat’ [Trotsky] is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes....
Those who stand for the ‘neither-victory-nor-defeat’ slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of international revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task.”

And in another 1915 article labeled “The State of Affairs in Russian Social-Democracy” Lenin comments,
“Trotsky, who as always entirely disagrees with the social-chauvinists in principle, but agrees with them in everything in practice....”

In the article entitled “Socialism and War” Lenin states,
“In Russia, Trotsky, while rejecting this idea, also defends unity with the opportunist and chauvinist Nasha Zarya group.


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #7
More on Lenin’s Opinion of Trotsky will now be presented.

In 1915 article in the Social Democrat entitled “On the Two Lines in the Revolution” Lenin comments on Trotsky’s failure to realize the importance of the peasantry by saying,
“This task is being wrongly tackled in Nashe Slovo by Trotsky, who is repeating his ‘original’ 1905 theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of ten years, life has been bypassing this splendid theory. From the Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has borrowed ‘repudiation’ of the peasantry’s role. The peasantry, he asserts, are divided into strata, have become differentiated; their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a ‘national’ revolution is impossible; ‘we are living in the era of imperialism,’ says Trotsky, and ‘imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.
...The length *Trotsky’s muddled thinking* goes to is evident from his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the ‘non-proletarian popular masses’ as well! Trotsky has not realized that if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to confiscate the landed estates and overthrown the monarchy, then that will be the consummation of the ‘national bourgeois revolution’ in Russia; it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry!.... This is such an obvious truth that not even the thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky’s Paris articles will ‘refute’ it. *Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians* in Russia, who by ‘repudiation’ of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!”

In a 1921 pamphlet entitled “The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and Trotsky’s Mistakes” Lenin drops a whole series of bombs on Trotsky’s theoretical analyses by saying,
“My principal material is Comrade Trotsky’s pamphlet, The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. When I compare it with the theses he submitted to the Central Committee, and go over it very carefully, I am amazed at the number of *theoretical mistakes and glaring blunders* it contains. How could anyone starting a big Party discussion on this question produce *such a sorry excuse for a carefully thought out statement*? Let me go over the main points which, I think, contain the original *fundamental theoretical errors*.
Trade unions are not just historically necessary; they are historically inevitable as an organization of the industrial proletariat, and, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, embrace nearly the whole of it. This is basic, but Comrade Trotsky keeps forgetting it; he neither appreciates it nor makes it his point of departure.... Within the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the trade unions stand, if I may say so, between the Party and the government. In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organization which takes in all industrial workers. Why not?.... What happens is that the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat.... But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organization embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class.... From this alone it is evident that there is something fundamentally wrong in principle when Comrade Trotsky points, in his first thesis, to ‘ideological confusion’, and speaks of a crisis as existing specifically and particularly in the trade unions.... *It is Trotsky who is in ‘ideological confusion’*, because in this key question of the trade unions’ role, from the standpoint of transition from capitalism to communism, he has lost sight of the fact that we have here a complex arrangement of cogwheels which cannot be a simple one; for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organization. It cannot work without a number of ‘transmission belts’ running from the vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the latter to the mass of the working people.
...When I consider the role of the trade unions in production, I find that Trotsky’s basic mistake lies in his always dealing with it ‘in principle,’ as a matter of ‘general principle.’ All his theses are based on ‘general principle,’ an approach which is in itself fundamentally wrong.... In general, Comrade Trotsky’s great mistake, his mistake of principle, lies in the fact that by raising the question of ‘principle’ at this time he is dragging back the Party and the Soviet power. We have, thank heaven, done with principles and have gone on to practical business. We chatted about principles--rather more than we should have--at the Smolny.
The actual differences, apart from those I have listed, really have nothing to do with general principles. I have had to enumerate my ‘differences’ with Comrade Trotsky because, with such a broad theme as ‘The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions,’ **he has, I am quite sure, made a number of mistakes bearing on the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat**.
...I must say that had we made a detailed, even if small-scale, study of our own experience and practices, we should have managed to avoid the hundreds of quite unnecessary ‘differences’ and *errors of principle in which Comrade Trotsky’s pamphlet abounds*.
...While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a ‘workers’ state.’ May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: ‘Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?’ The point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes.... This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that.
...Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this shape in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of the massively organized proletariat? No, this reasoning is theoretically quite wrong. It takes us into the sphere of abstraction or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years time, and I am not so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then.
...At any rate, see that you choose fewer slogans, like ‘industrial democracy,’ which contain nothing but confusion and are theoretically wrong. *Both Trotsky and Bukharin failed to think out this term theoretically and ended up in confusion*. ...I say: cast your vote against it, because it is confusion. Industry is indispensable, democracy is not. Industrial democracy breeds some utterly false ideas. The idea of one-man management was advocated only a little while ago. We must not make a mess of things and confuse people: how do you expect them to know when you want democracy, when one-man management, and when dictatorship. But on no account must we renounce dictatorship either....


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #8
[LENIN’S VIGOROUS DENUNCIATION OF TROTSKY’S POSITION ON THE TRADE UNIONS CONTINUES--PART 2]

But to go on. Since September we have been talking about switching from the principle of priority to that of equalization....
...Priority implies preference for one industry out of a group of vital industries because of its greater urgency. What does such preference entail? How great can it be? This is a difficult question.... And so if we are to raise this question of priority and equalization we must first of all give it some careful thought, but that is just what we fail to find in Comrade Trotsky’s work; *the further he goes in revising his original theses, the more mistakes he makes*. Here is what we find in his latest theses:.... This is *a real theoretical muddle. It is all wrong*....
The fourth point is disciplinary courts. I hope Comrade Bukharin will not take offence if I say that without disciplinary courts the role of the trade unions in industry, ‘industrial democracy,’ is a mere trifle. But the fact it that there is nothing at all about this in your theses. *“Great grief!’ is therefore the only thing that can be said about Trotsky’s theses and Bukharin’s attitude, from the standpoint of principle, theory and practice*.
I am confirmed in this conclusion when I say to myself: *yours is not a Marxist approach to the question.* This quite apart from the fact that there are a number of theoretical mistakes in the theses. It is not a Marxist approach to the evaluation of the ‘role and tasks of the trade unions,’ because such a broad subject cannot be tackled without giving thought to the peculiar political aspects of the present situation. After all, Comrade Bukharin and I did say in the resolution...on trade unions that politics is the most concentrated expression of economics.
...Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that on the question of workers’ democracy it remains for the Congress to ‘enter it unanimously in the record.’ That is not correct. There is more to it than an entry in the record; an entry in the record fixes what has been fully weighed and measured, whereas the question of industrial democracy is from having been fully weighed, tried and tested. Just think how the masses may interpret this slogan of ‘industrial democracy.’
...*Trotsky’s theses, whatever his intentions, do not tend to play up the best, but the worst in military experience*. It must be borne in mind that a political leader is responsible not only for his own policy but also for the acts of those he leads.
...The last thing I want to tell you about--something I called myself a fool for yesterday--is that I had altogether overlooked Comrade Rudzutak’s theses. His weak point is that he does not speak in ringing tones; he is not an impressive or eloquent speaker. He is liable to be overlooked. Unable to attend the meetings yesterday, I went through my material and found his leaflet called: ‘The Tasks of the Trade Unions in Production’. Let me read it to you, it is not long.... (Lenin then read Rudzutak’s pamphlet and says,--Ed.), I hope you see not why I called myself names. There you have a platform, and *it is much better than the one Comrade Trotsky wrote after a great deal of thinking*, and the one Comrade Bukharin wrote without any thinking at all. All of us members of the Central Committee who have been out of touch with the trade union movement for many years would profit from Comrade Rudzutak’s experience, and this also goes for Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Bukharin. The trade unions have adopted this platform.

(Lenin concludes his article on the trade unions by saying--Ed.)

The net result is that *there are a number of theoretical mistakes in Trotsky’s and Bukharin’s theses*: they contain a number of things that are wrong in principle. Politically, the whole approach to the matter is utterly tactless. *Comrade Trotsky’s ‘theses’ are politically harmful*. The sum and substance of his policy is bureaucratic harassment of the trade unions. Our Party Congress will, I am sure, condemn and reject it.”

At the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners in 1921 Lenin wrote,
“The morbid character of the question of the role and tasks of the trade unions is due to the fact that it took the form of a factional struggle much too soon. This vast, boundless question should not have been taken up in such haste, as it was done here, and *I put the chief blame on Comrade Trotsky for all this fumbling haste and precipitation*.
To illustrate my point, and to proceed at once to the heart of the matter, let me read you the chief of Trotsky’s theses. (Lenin then reads Trotsky’s short statement--Ed.). I could quote many similar passages from Trotsky’s pamphlet. I ask, by way of factional statement: Is it becoming for such an influential person, such a prominent leader, to attack his Party comrades in this way? I am sure that 99% of the comrades, excepting those involved in the quarrel, will say that this should not be done.
...What sort of talk is this? Is it the right kind of language? Is it the right approach? I had earlier said that I might succeed in acting as a ‘buffer’ and staying out of the discussion, because it is harmful to fight with Trotsky--it does the Republic, the Party, and all of us a lot of harm--but when this pamphlet came out, I felt I had to speak up.
...Even if there is a spirit of hostility for the new men, one should not say a thing like that. *Trotsky accuses Lozovsky and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices. I would say the reverse is true*.
...Even the best workers make mistakes.... Comrade Trotsky says that Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky--trade unionists both--are guilty of cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men. *But this is monstrous. Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing like that*.
That is just why *Trotsky’s whole approach is wrong*. I could have analyzed any one of his theses, but it would take me hours, and you would all be bored to death. *Every thesis reveals the same thoroughly wrong approach*....


************************************************** *************

LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #9
LENIN’S EXPOSURE OF TROTSKY’S INADEQUACIES CONTINUES--THE TRADE UNIONS (Part 3)

In another 1921 article on the same topic entitled “Once Again on the Trade Unions” Lenin states,
“*Comrade Trotsky’s theses have landed him in a mess*. That part of them which is correct is not new and, wha

[Conghaileach]

Stalin and Trotsky were both dicks.

Now they're both dead dicks.

The end.



And as for those Lenin articles, you should be careful about them. A lot was run of his stuff was run through old "Uncle Joe's School of Airbrushing" before being published - if you catch my drift.

[Dynatos II]

Bottom line.

- Stalin's policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian, state that was the USSR in 1950-1990.

- Mao's stalinist policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian state that is China.

- Maoist and Stalinist policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian state that is N.Korea.

- Trotsky was right when he said Stalin and his opportunist thugs would lead to a capitalist restoration or a new revolution to overthrow Stalin and his opportunist thugs.

You can talk all you want about the past but you cant argue with the present.

P.S. Cass, why was Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krenestinsky, and Smilga executed?

[Cassius Clay]

''Bottom line.''

According to who? You or Trotsky? Guess Lenin was right when he said ''every since the spring of 1910 Trotsky has been *deceiving the workers in a most unprincipled and shameless manner*. I do like though how you don't bother to argue how Trotsky wasn't reactionary but just come up with the usual rhectoric about Stalin.

''- Stalin's policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian, state that was the USSR in 1950-1990.''

Your dam right the USSR had many of those characteristics for it's last 40 odd years. But you forget to include it was Capitalist. But as usual all I see here from you Trots is rhectoric and nothing else. Trotsky was the biggest beuracrate of them all, Lenin and the party exposed that in the Trade Union dispute in 1921. 'Totolitarian' if your view of a state where workers can fire their own managers and over 47% of local officials are thrown out in elections then give me 'Totolitarianism' every time. Truth is this is basless rhectoric and little more.

''the working class...must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camp''

L. Trotsky. Whose the 'Totolitarian' again?

''- Mao's stalinist policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian state that is China.''

What does Mao or the PRC have to do with anything. Mao wasn't a 'Stalinist' and plenty of 'Stalinists' despise the man. Mao's China had many faults being 'beuracratic' was not one of them. Stalin described Mao 'as red on the outside white on the inside'. People at the PLP and Alliance have done a brilliant job of exposing Mao's faults. My own opinion was expressed in the thread 'Who would want to be a Maoist' in the Opposing Ideologies forum. Go there if your that bothered, because I cant be bothered to write something which I won't get any meaningful reply.

''- Maoist and Stalinist policies resulted in the creation of a corrupt, bureaucratic, totalitarian state that is N.Korea.''

'Kim II Sung is a Meglomaniac dictator' the words of that 'Stalinist' Enver Hoxha. But that doesn't prove that he was does it? So instead of relying on just rhectoric like you Trots a article was written entitled 'Long Live Korean Unification. Down with Korean Revisionism'

http://www.allianceml.com/China/KoreaNS.htm

''- Trotsky was right when he said Stalin and his opportunist thugs would lead to a capitalist restoration or a new revolution to overthrow Stalin and his opportunist thugs.''

Enver Hoxha among many others predicted the USSR would collapse in the 60's, and they allready knew it was Capitalist. Trotsky was the one who joined the Bolsheviks only when he realised that they stood the most chance of leading the workers into power. It was after a Trot by the name of Nikita Khrushev took power in a military coup that Capitalism was restored. So what may I ask has happened to this 'new revolution'? Why dont we see any Trots in the former USSR, well I guess Trotsky's 'Military Discipline' wouldn't go down to well with the workers.

''You can talk all you want about the past but you cant argue with the present.''

Right! So why are you supporting a man who was proved wrong over 60 years ago? Why are we having this argument when it is clear today and has been for decades who was right?

I will argue though 'argue' about 'the past' to show what a reactionary ideology Trotskyism is.


''P.S. Cass, why was Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krenestinsky, and Smilga executed?''

I've proven these people were guilty so many times I can't be bothered to do it again. Just a word from a impartial observer who was actually there.

"…after daily observation of the witnesses, their manner of testifying, the unconscious corroborations which developed, and other facts in the course of the trial, together with others of which judicial notice could be taken, it is my opinion so far as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes under Soviet law, among those charged in the indictment, were established by the proof and beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of guilty of treason and the adjudication of the punishment provided by Soviet criminal statutes."

American Ambassador Joe Davis in 1938. Oh yes and note that Stalin was against Bukharin's esecution.

[Dynatos II]

If the USSR in 1920-1950 really was a workers state with workers democracy, the workers would have been able to stop the rise of Kruschev and the corrupt bureaucrats. Kruschev never would have been able to have the position he did in the party, much less become the leader of the Communist party after Stalin died, if it really was democratic. So what happened after Stalin died? Was the workers democracy entirely dependent on Stlains life and after he died it just stopped existing?

''So why are you supporting a man who was proved wrong over 60 years ago? Why are we having this argument when it is clear today and has been for decades who was right?''

i dont support Stalin...

I find it very interesting that you believe that most of the 1917 Bolshevik CC were actually enemies of Socialism.

Heres another question. In the 30s why did Stalin abolish the law that said no government or party official would be allowed to make more than 4 times the workers wage?

[Cassius Clay]

I do like the way you've turned this thread into a a critique of Stalin while you haven't even bothered to refute Trotskyism being reactionary.

''If the USSR in 1920-1950 really was a workers state with workers democracy, the workers would have been able to stop the rise of Kruschev and the corrupt bureaucrats.''

In 1973 Pinochet in Chile overthrew what was a bourgesie democracy headed by Allende. Does this example mean Allende wasn't a democraticly elected leader who was setting about creating a worthwile society? I don't think so. The workers did fight against Khrushchev, in Georgia in 1956 which spread throughout the USSR and in the Ukraine in 1962 and in countless other smaller but no less significant examples. It didn't help that Khruschev had the power of the military on his side. If you wish to know more about what happened go here http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/RCSU75.html

As for the 'workers democracy' read here.

''Also the workers had power to counter act a director who abused his
authority. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour
Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to
hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss.

One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois
scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical
handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . .
. implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question
as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who
suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be
removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)

Walter Reuther, later the anti-Communist president of the United Auto Workers, who worked in a Soviet auto factory in the 1930s said, "Here are no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups. Here the workers are in control. Even the shop superintendent had no more right in these meetings than any other worker. I have witnessed many times already when the superintendent spoke too long. The workers in the hall decided he had already consumed enough time and the floor was given to a lathe hand who told of his problems and offered suggestions. Imagine this at Ford or Briggs. This is what the outside world calls the 'ruthless dictatorship in Russia'. I tell you ... in all countries we have thus far been in we have never found such genuine proletarian democracy"... (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953]).''


''Kruschev never would have been able to have the position he did in the party, much less become the leader of the Communist party after Stalin died, if it really was democratic.''

That Khruschev got into such a high position proves that both USSR and Stalin were the precise opposite to what your saying. Stalin had been told that Khrushcev was a member of the Trotskyite opposition, all Stalin wanted to know was if he had seen the errors of his way, everybody thouhgt he had. And even if they hadn't there would of been very little Stalin could of done, since Khrushev was elected.

''So what happened after Stalin died? Was the workers democracy entirely dependent on Stlains life and after he died it just stopped existing?''

No where have I said this? The workers, students and peasants fought as hard as they could against Khrushev, as did the party and later on some elements of the Army. Khrushev got to power through a military coup and a mixture of cunning and terror.

''i dont support Stalin...''

Very funny. Only problem is it is Trotsky who said that Socialism couldn't be built and was proven wrong (he even admitted as such in 1934), it was Trotsky who said the peasants and workers couldn't form a alliance and it was Trotsky who said that the USSR would collapse within a year of a invasion. Gosh he was proved right on that last one wasn't he.

''I find it very interesting that you believe that most of the 1917 Bolshevik CC were actually enemies of Socialism.''

I find it very interesting that you've just flat out ignored what can only be described as a imparital observer who was actually there had to say about it. I've provided evidence that these people were guilty so many times I'm not going to do it again. Want prove that infultration reaches high places, look no further than Hitler's brother in law who was a MI6 spy, Kim Philby and his Cambrigde comrades, the CPUSA's foriegn delagate being a FBI informer throughout the Cold War, leading Bolsheviks in the 1900's being Okhahna spies.

''Heres another question. In the 30s why did Stalin abolish the law that said no government or party official would be allowed to make more than 4 times the workers wage?''

''There would always be differences in wages of course during socialism.
These things cannot be prevented until society is able to close up the division
between manual and mental labor. In fact the gap between the lowest and the
highest wages even increased during the 1930s, as an enormous influx of new
recruits from the countryside more than tripled the ranks of the industrial
proletariat between 1929 and 1940.''

From Ludo Marten's 'In Defence of Stalinism'. You also conviently forget to note Stalin's Fifth Five Year Plan which aimed to get rid of these inequalties. This was interupted by the war and the rebuilding after it. Also note that Stalin himself 'receieved the maximum wage of party officials which is 500 roubles a month'.