Trotsky on Wikipedia, is it accurate?

[R_P_A_S]

Im not much of an expert on Trotsky. I mean I know very little... but.. did someone totally fucked up some of the entrees on Wikipedia concerning Trotsky? specially around the 1914 to 1924 time lines? I need some confirmations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

[Wanted Man]

Why? It looks about right to me. It's pretty much common knowledge that the man opposed Lenin before 1917, that he messed up the peace process in 1918, that he did not act against Stalin when he could, and that he engaged in blatant factionalism.

I do like the very opinionated tone of the "1924" section: "troika partisans", "troika supporters (...) taking potshots at him", "skillfully played the role of a moderate", etc. That section could really use a rewrite. Defenders of Trotsky are not labelled "Trotskyite partisans", "taking potshots" and "skillful actors".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think it is factually accurate. He's basically described as a vital figure in the revolution, albeit flawed, which only makes him human, but not a fool.

I didnt know about the things about how Trotsky made enemies of the Bolsheviks during the war or anything, i haven't ever read much about that.

[bezdomni]

Yeah. Trotsky originally sided with the mensheviks, and retained a significant amount of the menshevik tendency in his thought and action even when he supported the bolsheviks.

[Tower of Bebel]

This might be a topic to ask this:

I hear two versions of Trotsky's stance towards the mensheviks. One is that he sided with the mensheviks. The other is that he was against the bolsheviks, but still independant from the mensheviks.

Which is true?

[bolshevik butcher]

The latter is true. Not taking a side in the bolshevik/menshevik split from the start was something Trotsky publicly renounced later in life and maintained it was one of his biggest mistakes in his political life.

[spartan]

the reason trotsky did not take either side was because he was waiting to see which side would come out victorious. trotsky like most authoritarian communists was a power hungry freak who would have turned out just as bad as stalin if it was he who became leader after lenins death. but the ussr was fucked right from the word go if you ask me.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:13 pm
the reason trotsky did not take either side was because he was waiting to see which side would come out victorious. trotsky like most authoritarian communists was a power hungry freak
:wacko:

[bolshevik butcher]

That's ever so logical! If he was a power hungry freak why didn't he just stay with the mensheviks and take up a cozy powerful ministerial position in the provisional government?

Most communists are power hungry freaks are they, because a majoraty the communist movement in the world is made up of leninists. I think it shows a real disgregard for the communist movement world wide to paint such a ridiculous and ignorant picture. Most leninists are people dedicated to fighting for the working class, just because you think that they are misguided in this doesn't justify spount absoloute sectarian nonscense.

[spartan]

that is because most authoritarian communists are power hungry freaks! when you believe in a party or a vanguard history has proven that once you win a revolution that party with its vanguardism usually becomes a hierarchy or new class. anyone remember the ussr, maos china, hoxhas albania, soviet eastern europe? im not prepared to have a bunch of looney leninists leading a bloody revolution! because the next thing you know there will be a secret police looking for made up enemies or a cultural revolution that ends up killing millions. no i think i will stick with anarchism which does not believe in parties or governments or hierarchies or special positions/privilages or systems that creates a new ruling class.

[bolshevik butcher]

That's not an answer to the argument at all, but your self righoutness is to be applauded. You're arguing why you feel Anarchism is prefferable to Leninism while not at all justifying the statement you made about Leninists being powerhungry freaks.

[spartan]

histoy is on my side bolshevik butcher not yours. so face reality leninism which lead to stalinism, maoism, etc is a complete faliure and history has proven that this was not constructive to the proletarian struggle. nay it was a setback!

[bolshevik butcher]

Justify that "authoritarian communists" are power hungry freaks please. After we've been through that I might try answering your anarchist cliches. I'm perfectly aware what anarchists think of bolshevism dont worry. I'm not a stalinist or a maoist anyway but that's not relivent. You have made a wide sweeping statement and refused twice now to justify it.

[spartan]

bolshevik butcher all you have to do is look at HISTORY!!! my friend and your questions will be answered. and oh yeah a little hint the clue is in the words AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNISTS!!! of which trotsky was one of them. do you get it now comrade the answer is right there AUTHORITARIAN.

[bolshevik butcher]

No, thats simply not true. Just because the USSR emerged as a deformed workers' state that by the way did all it could to silence Trotsky hardly proves that Trotsky as a power hungry freak who as I said could have easily had power by being a right winger.. Why would someone who wanted power struggle for the working class rather than join the ruling class' political power bloc if they wanted power?

Anyway, you said all authoritaran communists. As I have already explained, most authoritarian communists have next to no power and don't dream of doing so. Do you think most rank and file members of Leninist organisations have some sort of odd asspiration of personal power?

[spartan]

Anyway, you said all authoritaran communists. As I have already explained, most authoritarian communists have next to no power and don't dream of doing so. Do you think most rank and file members of Leninist organisations have some sort of odd asspiration of personal power?

no they just become their "glorious" leaders devotees and henchmen and do anything "comrade" fuhrer tells them to.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yep, thats how internal democracy works under Leninism. I suggest you read the state and revolution and what is to be done. Obvioulsy people will disagree with Leninism, I'd be shocked if everyone in the revolutionary left were to come to a concensous but all you seem to do is mindlessly repeat cliches and one liners as though they were some sort of god given truth, if I did the same about anarchism I would be ridiculed for doing so and rightly so.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:53 pm
bolshevik butcher all you have to do is look at HISTORY!!! my friend and your questions will be answered. and oh yeah a little hint look at the words AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNISTS!!! do you get it now comrade the answer is right there AUTHORITARIAN.
Spartan, you like semantics, do you?

[spartan]

history is history bolshevik butcher and history has showed lenin and leninism to be a complete faliure. for instance why didnt lenin start a worldwide revolution by invading central europe? all he had to do was throw everything he had at europe the tired battered nations of who had just emerged from ww1 would have fallen easily especially when you consider the huge left wing movements who were pro soviet and the almost constant revolutions. but no comrade lenin blinded by power decided to stay in the nice former tsars palaces. he really had the proletarians best intrest at heart there comrade :lol: no bolshevism, leninism, stalinism what ever you want to call it just use all these manifestos and pamphelets to get support for what they really wanted power! name one nation practising leninism? oh and this does not include nations that claim to but which are actually capitalist.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:00 pm

Anyway, you said all authoritaran communists. As I have already explained, most authoritarian communists have next to no power and don't dream of doing so. Do you think most rank and file members of Leninist organisations have some sort of odd asspiration of personal power?

no they just become their "glorious" leaders devotees and henchmen and do anything "comrade" fuhrer tells them to.
You're an idiot.

[bolshevik butcher]

You keep avoiding your own argument and turning this into another debate about the general principles of anarchism and Leninism, you still haven't justifified all "authoritarian communists" being power hungry freaks and appear infact to have silently withdrawn this principle.

Invasion? That sounds rather authoritairan from an anarchist! You cannot simply impose socialism from above. Socialism can only be established by the working class of a nation taking power. The bolsehviks did try to support the working class internationally, unfortuantley in the aftermath of the first world war the revolutionary outbreaks in Europes industraialised countries failed and in everywhere except Russia the counter revolution emerged successful. The failure of the world reovlution resulted in a Russian workers state that was unable to sustain working class control and degenerated into rule by a parasitic buearaucracy.

Anarchism is functioning on a large scale anywhere just now?

A nation doesn't "practise Leninism" anyway, what is Leninism? Some form of religon? I don't think there is a socialist nation just now. However I think the ideas of marxism/Leninism are far more influential in the world today, partiuclarly in Latin America and Venezuela just now than anarchism.

[Faux Real]

http://will.incorrige.us/facepalm/picard.jpeg

why didnt lenin start a worldwide revolution by invading central europe?
Worker emancipation has to come from the workers themselves not some foreign social-imperialist coming to conquer your country and replace the old bourgeoisie with the new bureaucracy!

The rest of your post is ignorant sectarian BS with no understanding the external conditions of those previous M-L nations that led them to failure.

[spartan]

lenins ideas on the all powerful party and the vanguard led to a hierarchy and thus later on a new ruling class. thus lenin was ultimately, perhaps with himself not knowing it, a reactionary.

You're an idiot.

how am i an idiot?

[spartan]

why cant you idiots see that there will never be a successful revolution with an all powerful party and vanguard leading the way like lenin believed. the aim is for a society where there is no nations no governments, parties or hierarchies and no money so how can this happen when you have lenin in a palace making his party the new parliament and not spreading worldwide revolution? lenin was blinded by power and settled for second best and the only people to lose out were the proletarian which he claimed to lead.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:32 pm

You're an idiot.

how am i an idiot?
You were also the one who started this thread: violence (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70328)

You think you can make the revolution. At least everyone here knows Lenin needed a victorious German revolution to succeed in his gamble to give history a push.

[spartan]

the various left wing german revolutions would have been successful if he had decided to throw everything he had at western europe! look at the shitty situation europe was in after ww1 the workers were begging for a lenin and for the ussr! but ultimately he didnt do everything he could have and he let the poles kick his armies arse and now we are arguing over whether he was good or not. not much of an arguement in my opinion. he was if you look at the whole situation ultimately a faliure to the worldwide left wing movement. because he settled for comfort instead of progress.

[bolshevik butcher]

As has been pointed out by me and other comrades you can't simply impose socialism on another country it's down to the workers of those countries themselves although the bolsheviks did everything they could to support other countries. You seem to be missing somethinglese as well. Russia was in a state of civil war at the time! It's not like Russia hadn't been ruined by the first world war anyway, on top of this it had been invaded by an alliance of imperialist powers and there was also the small problem of much of the country being under the control of the whites. Small inconviniences I assume...

[spartan]

fair enough but that didnt stop them from invading and almost conquering the newly formed state of poland and killing off the anarchist movement in russia :angry:

[Raúl Duke]

I can't believe I'm defending Leninists....


the reason trotsky did not take either side was because he was waiting to see which side would come out victorious. trotsky like most authoritarian communists was a power hungry freak who would have turned out just as bad as stalin if it was he who became leader after lenins death.

While I think he coulda been a left opportunist when it came to the Menshevik/Bolshevik split....

But to say that he and the other bolsheviks were power hungry freaks is quite blown out of porportion....

I think these people had good intentions when they began their struggles, etc. The problem started once they got in power and began taking actions "in the name of the soviets" before approval from the soviets (only asking for it when it was said and done).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 30, 2007 10:57 pm
Why? It looks about right to me. It's pretty much common knowledge that the man opposed Lenin before 1917, that he messed up the peace process in 1918, that he did not act against Stalin when he could, and that he engaged in blatant factionalism.
Sectarianism is a more appropriate word. :( Too bad the article on Trotskyism needs more rework to factor in the sectarian BS.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 04, 2007 06:27 pm

Most communists are power hungry freaks are they, because a majoraty the communist movement in the world is made up of leninists. I think it shows a real disgregard for the communist movement world wide to paint such a ridiculous and ignorant picture. Most leninists are people dedicated to fighting for the working class, just because you think that they are misguided in this doesn't justify spount absoloute sectarian nonscense.
Well, that's all fine and dandy in theory but in practice it's a whole different story.

Saying Leninists are fighting for the working class, doesn't say much. I mean, it can be argued that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama and John Edwards are fighting for the working class, but we know there isn't a revolutionary bone in there body.

So we have to be overly critical of this phrase "fighting for the working class". Due to the fact that a reformist or revolutionary can both engage in fights for the working class. However, one group stops short of putting power in workers' hands while the other one is driven by it.

So without workers owning and being controllers of the means of production but instead replaced with an "elite cadre" who is fighting in the "interest of the working class", what we have in actuality is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over the proletariat(as well as the peasant class).

What is so fundamental about this seemingly minor difference?

Well, it all goes back to Marx's phrase of being determines consciousness.

When your role is to be a boss, you naturally start thinking like a boss. Soon, you feel it is your right and obligation to be the boss.

So material reality reveals you successfully overthrew the old ruling class and replaced it with a new one, complete with Marxist rhetoric and all.

Lenin did all that we could in Russia, but material conditions prevailed.

So, yes, Leninists probably are people dedicated to fighting for the working class, but they are using the wrong strategy if they envision the working class having power. And history proves me right. :star:

[spartan]

yes you are exactly right blackstone. i wish i could have put it like that that was great! just like to add my own statement on the matter "where there is authority there is no freedom" nothing could be more true than that statement which was on the banners of people attending the funeral of peter kropotkin.

[bolshevik butcher]

Blackstone I'd reffer you to another million threads on arguments between anarchists and leninist. However, you are making some form of political argument which is fair enough and maintaining an authentic leftist position. Spartan on the otherhand has just made baseless assertions/accusations.

I disagree with your assertion that Leninism is about creating some form of elite cadre base that replaces the working class. One of the cornerstones of the revolutionary party is that the party or any form of organisation cannot replace the working class itself. Leninism is a theory of how best to agitate among and oragnise the working class' seizure of power, one that you disagree with but not a theory that argues that the task of seizing power can be transdered from the working class and onto some form of small elite.

[spartan]

blackstones post says it all bolshevik butcher! he put into words exactly what i was thinking but i could not find the words in my head to write myself so thank you blackstone.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:30 pm
blackstones post says it all bolshevik butcher! he put into words exactly what i was thinking but i could not find the words in my head to write myself so thank you blackstone.
Spartan, parts of your posts say different things.

And Blackstone, does your post also say leninist parties cannot be a part of the working class? A tool to a succesful revolution?

[spartan]

And Blackstone, does your post also say leninist parties cannot be a part of the working class? A tool to a succesful revolution?
Raccoon how can a group of these individuals be a part of a proletarian revolution when histoy shows that whatever revolution they have been apart of they have always become the new hierarchy and the new ruling class?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:38 pm

And Blackstone, does your post also say leninist parties cannot be a part of the working class? A tool to a succesful revolution?
Raccoon how can a group of these individuals be a part of a proletarian revolution when histoy shows that whatever revolution they have been apart of they have always become the new hierarchy and the new ruling class?
I can only remember one good example of a revolution were a party in the "leninist tradition" took power, and that was the October revolution. Though, I don't know much about China in 1949.

[RNK]

but the ussr was fucked right from the word go if you ask me.

I think I speak for a lot of people on this board when I say NOBODY FUCKING ASKED YOU. Infact, nobody asks you about anything, so just don't talk, okay? Just assume nobody wants to know your opinion, and everything will work out fine.


Raccoon how can a group of these individuals be a part of a proletarian revolution when histoy shows that whatever revolution they have been apart of they have always become the new hierarchy and the new ruling class?

Because Marx shows us that the most advanced (ideologically) sections of the working class must form a vanguard for the workers to carry out their revolutionary tasks.

It's still essentially a WIP, though, as revolution is a process which requires a high level of scientific understanding. It isn't some utopian fairy tale that can be orchestrated like a play.

[spartan]

this is so funny! RNK a poor little maoist argueing in favour of hierarchy and a ruling class (or as these authoritarians like to call themselves "the vanguard of the people" or even worse the "all supreme peoples party" :lol: ) you are just like all the other maoist reactionary scum that bring down the rest of the left! maoists are essentially the same as stalinists a bunch of so called leftists who like uniforms, upholding "law" and telling unwilling people (whom they have the cheek to call "enemies of the state" even though there is suppossed to be no state in a communist world! and most of these so called "enemies of the state" were in fact people who simply disagreed over something and were probably more communist then a maoist ever could be!) that they either follow them or die (a bit like the nazis used to say to political opponents in their death camps! of course these authoritarian communists had their own death camps which they called "labour camps"). honestly do you think maoism or stalinism or any kind of your bullshit fascist authoritarianism is going to still be around when we are living in our new society and world? because i think it is pretty obvious that it wont be! where there is authority there is no freedom always remember that. of course there is nothing new in a fascist maoist espousing the virtues of a "vanguard" or "party" in a revolution (even though every revolution which has adhered to this concept has ultimately failed as the "vanguard" or "party" has become the new ruling class! oh and history will prove me right on this one so no point in argueing that point okay!) because it makes it easier for fascist maoist scum to get their greedy little reactionary hands into power (and it aint no peoples power or "dictatorship of the proletariat" no it is just a plain old dictatorship. case in point the DPRK, maos china, stalins USSR, hoxhas albania, etc, etc). come back to reality RNK before it is too late! because ultimately a "special" class of "leaders of the proletariat" (as if the proletariat needs it in this day and age) will never work in the intrests of the proletariat as they are blinded by power! and if you disagree then i suggest you look at all of the old so called communist states that existed. they should prove my point quite easily.