Trotskyist-Zinovievist Anti-Party Bloc

[Sky]

The Trotskyist-Zinovievist Antiparty bloc was an anti-Leninist opposition group within Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) in 1926 and 1927. The bloc was formed by Trotskyists, the members of the New Opposition, and sympathizers from the Workers Opposition, the Democratic Centralist faction, and other antiparty factions. Objectively speaking, the bloc reflected the dissatisfaction of the urban petite bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The bloc was formed by isolated, unstable elements in the CP who feared that the reconstruction of the national economy along socialist lines would encounter serious difficulties because of the country’s technological and economic backwardness and the heightened threat of military attack by the imperialists. In the opinion of the bloc’s leaders, socialism could not be built in Russia unless proletarian revolution also triumphed in the West. Regarding the economy of Russia as part of the world capitalist economy, the bloc’s leaders thought that Russia could not overcome economic dependence on the West and would not succeed in building socialism on its own. They therefore regarded the Party’s efforts to build socialism in Russia as a manifestation of insularism and a rejection of international proletarian revolution. Considering the October Revolution to be merely a signal and a starting point for the socialist revolution in Western Europe, the bloc adventuristically demanded the implementation of a “resolute” foreign policy (including the declaration of war against capitalist countries) in order to “push” the development of world revolution. They opposed the Comintern’s tactics of a united front in the struggle against imperialism, and they accused the Central Committee of the CP of failing to devote sufficient efforts to strengthening the Red Army.

In opposition to Lenin’s plan for industrialization adopted in 1925, the bloc members demanded rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry, whom they considered to be a hostile, antirevolutionary force. Their other demands included accelerating industrialization, raising the prices of industrial goods, lowering the prices of agricultural products, increasing taxes on the peasantry, and raising the workers’ wages independently of the rate of the increase in labor productivity. Had these demands been implemented, they would have broken the worker-peasant alliance, disrupted industrialization, and in the final analysis, caused the downfall of Soviet power. The bloc members demanded freedom for factions within the party, attempted to discredit the Party apparatus, slandered the Central Committee of the CP in order to undermine its authority, and strove to seize the leadership of the Party.

At the Joint Pleum of the Central Committee of the CP in July 1926, the Trotskyists and Zinovievists issued the Declaration of the 13, which presented the platform of the antiparty bloc. The plenum condmned this action and expelled Zinoviev from the Politburo and the Central Committee. In October 1926 the Central Committee removed Trotsky from membership in the Politburo. The Fifteenth Conference of the CP in 1926 stated that the bloc represented a social democratic deviation in the party and that with respect toe the most important questions of international and domestic policy the bloc’s platform was a departure from the class line of proletarian revolution. In October 1927, Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled from the Central Committee. An intraparty discussion on questions of the agenda of the Fifteenth Congress of the CP was set. More than 738000 of the 745000 Communists who took part in the discussion supported the Central Committee; 4120 persons supported the antiparty bloc. On November 7, 1927, the bloc’s leaders attempted to organize illegal demonstrations in Moscow and Leningrad under their antiparty slogans; this action itself was anti-Soviet. On 14 November 1927, Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled from the Party. In December 1927 the Fifteenth Congress of the CP summarized the intraparty discussion; nothing that the opposition had completely broken with Leninism and had become a Menshevist group, the congress declared that membership in the Trotskyist opposition was incompatiable with the leadership of the CP. In August 1928 the Sixth Congress of the Comintern approved the expulsion of the Trotskyists from the international communist movement.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/CQL26.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OR24.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/OB26.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TO27.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

The funny thing is that Stalin borrowed heavily from Trotsky (militarized organization, rapid industrialization), Zinoviev (blunders on the International front), and Kamenev (cowardice in dealing with the Provisional Government, which the main national "Communist" parties of today do all too well).

[spartan]

Objectively speaking, the bloc reflected the dissatisfaction of the urban petite bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Peasants made up over 80% of the Russian population just before the Great War, and Russia was still mainly a Feudal based society, so where this petite Bourgeois comes from i dont know?

And even if they did exist, which they more than likely didnt (Or at least not to the extent that you obviously feel that they did), they would have been an extremely small powerless minority, to say the least, so how could they hold so much influence?


Regarding the economy of Russia as part of the world capitalist economy, the bloc’s leaders thought that Russia could not overcome economic dependence on the West and would not succeed in building socialism on its own.
Something that they were later proved right on.

Stalin started trading like crazy with the Capitalist states (Though i am sure that you will find some typical reason to excuse this), which made the USSR vulnerable to changes in the Capitalist market (Which is what sent the USSR into oblivion in 1991).

In opposition to Lenin’s plan for industrialization adopted in 1925, the bloc members demanded rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry, whom they considered to be a hostile, antirevolutionary force.
Marx himself argued roughly the same position, and said that the Peasants would dissappear as a class, due to industrialization, which wold make the majority of the Peasants urbanized Proletarians, and a minority of the more successful Peasants, into Capitalist landlords.

What Marx proves with this is that you cant go from a Feudal society, based around Peasants and landlords, to a Socialist society.

To get to the stage of Socialism, you need the absolute basics of an urban Proletariat in an industrialized nation (Neither of which Russia had at the time of the "revolution").

It seems to me that most of what this bloc was attempting, was to apply basic Marxist principles to a self described Socialist state.

[chimx]

What Marx proves with this is that you cant go from a Feudal society, based around Peasants and landlords, to a Socialist society.

Marx never really liked people applying his theories so strictly.

"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina [peasant commune], though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development." -Marx and Engels 1882

Of course what Marx suggested, and what Lenin was banking on, never happened: that Russia could act as a catalyst to a world-wide communist revolution.

[Great Helmsman]

Thanks Comrade Sky, interesting post. :cool:

[YKTMX]

Objectively speaking, the bloc reflected the dissatisfaction of the urban petite bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat.


*snigger*

I stopped reading after this.

[Holden Caulfield]

anti-party? really, to me it seemed more anti-Stalinist when Trotsky again and again made concessions to Stalin (et al) at his own detrement so that the party remained strong

[gilhyle]

Yeah right, just so I got this right...being pro-party is purging the party, killing all its long standing members and packing its ranks with ambitious functionaries. Being anti-party is refusing to use the army to overthrow the party, denying the legitimacy of Lenin's testament for the sake of party unity and believing that (in the 1920s) what made the USSR reformable was the quality of the party.

By the way, sociologically, the revolutionary party itself is a petit bourgeois phenomenon in the first instance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx never really liked people applying his theories so strictly.

"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina [peasant commune], though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development." -Marx and Engels 1882

Of course what Marx suggested, and what Lenin was banking on, never happened: that Russia could act as a catalyst to a world-wide communist revolution.

You'd be very surprised at how LITTLE Lenin knew of Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich, due to heavy self-censorship by Kautsky and Plekhanov (because they treated Das Kapital as universalist "semi-dogma" (http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-is-not-marxist-but-neither-was.html)). In fact, it was released in Russia only AFTER the revolution.

[Louis Pio]

Yeah right, just so I got this right...being pro-party is purging the party, killing all its long standing members and packing its ranks with ambitious functionaries. Being anti-party is refusing to use the army to overthrow the party, denying the legitimacy of Lenin's testament for the sake of party unity and believing that (in the 1920s) what made the USSR reformable was the quality of the party.


Of course, why can't you see it?;)
Being pro-party is using a menshevic like VYshinsky who first sided with the Whites as accuser in the trials against the old bolshevics. (was that cause of Stalin's morbid humour? I mean using a guy like VYshinsky really showed the old bolshevics that the party they had fought for were quite dead.)

[chimx]

You'd be very surprised at how LITTLE Lenin knew of Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich, due to heavy self-censorship by Kautsky and Plekhanov (because they treated Das Kapital as universalist "semi-dogma"). In fact, it was released in Russia only AFTER the revolution.

Actually that was from the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto: link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm).

[Intelligitimate]

Of course, why can't you see it?;)
Being pro-party is using a menshevic like VYshinsky who first sided with the Whites as accuser in the trials against the old bolshevics. (was that cause of Stalin's morbid humour? I mean using a guy like VYshinsky really showed the old bolshevics that the party they had fought for were quite dead.)

You're not being coherent. What the hell does "using a menshevic like VYshinsky who first sided with the Whites as accuser in the trials against the old bolshevics" even mean? I realize English is probably not your first language, but please explain yourself clearly, and provide some evidence of what it is you're trying to say.

[Random Precision]

You're not being coherent. What the hell does "using a menshevic like VYshinsky who first sided with the Whites as accuser in the trials against the old bolshevics" even mean? I realize English is probably not your first language, but please explain yourself clearly, and provide some evidence of what it is you're trying to say.

A.Ya. Vyshinsky, who was the state prosecutor at the Moscow Trials, had been a Menshevik and a member of the Provisional Government, commanding the militia of the Yakimansky District in Moscow. In that capacity he ordered the arrest of Lenin as a German agent, and signed his name to each wanted poster. Later this would become quite ironic, as it was he who accused Bukharin of conspiring with the Socialist-Revolutionaries to assassinate Lenin.

Source: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes in Europe: Legacies And Lessons from the 20th Century, Jerzy W. Borejsza and Klaus Ziemer, eds. Case Study of A.Ya. Vyshinsky by Adam Bosiacki:

http://books.google.com/books?id=olpKYhgrS48C&pg=PA430&dq=Totalitarian+and+Authoritarian+Regimes+in+Europ e:+Legacies+And+Lessons+from+the+20th+Century&sig=-pQNUK_91s3LCvxqqsHOWdIxhRE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually that was from the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto: link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm).

In any event, the words of "late" Marx were definitely against the universalism heralded by Kautsky and especially Plekhanov (http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-is-not-marxist-but-neither-was.html). My anecdote regarding the heavy censorship of Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich stands. :)

[Intelligitimate]

A.Ya. Vyshinsky, who was the state prosecutor at the Moscow Trials, had been a Menshevik and a member of the Provisional Government, commanding the militia of the Yakimansky District in Moscow. In that capacity he ordered the arrest of Lenin as a German agent, and signed his name to each wanted poster. Later this would become quite ironic, as it was he who accused Bukharin of conspiring with the Socialist-Revolutionaries to assassinate Lenin.

Source: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes in Europe: Legacies And Lessons from the 20th Century, Jerzy W. Borejsza and Klaus Ziemer, eds. Case Study of A.Ya. Vyshinsky by Adam Bosiacki:

http://books.google.com/books?id=olpKYhgrS48C&pg=PA430&dq=Totalitarian+and+Authoritarian+Regimes+in+Europ e:+Legacies+And+Lessons+from+the+20th+Century&sig=-pQNUK_91s3LCvxqqsHOWdIxhRE

It was the "sided with the Whites" part I didn't get.

[chimx]

In any event, the words of "late" Marx were definitely against the universalism heralded by Kautsky and especially Plekhanov. My anecdote regarding the heavy censorship of Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich stands.

Then you don't think Lenin read the preface to the Russian edition of the Manifesto?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know, to be quite honest (forgive me for the lack of histomat knowledge on this particular detail). All I know is that the material in Marx's letter was censored until well into (or perhaps after) the Russian civil war.

I think that, because of this censorship, Kautsky and Plekhanov unwittingly contributed to the popular notion today (in politics and academia) that Marx never believed any radical revolution to be possible in Russia (except for one led by the inept Russian bourgeoisie). :(

[Of course, coming from my "Leninist Marxist" point of view, one has to differentiate between a Bolshevik-led "radical democratic revolution" (the not-so-radical one being in March 1917) to end feudal relations, and a proper socialist revolution which Lenin himself said would occur in the future (in contrast to Trotsky's let's-skip-historical-stages crap).]

[chimx]

^^^ I don't know, to be quite honest (forgive me for the lack of histomat knowledge on this particular detail). All I know is that the material in Marx's letter was censored until well into (or perhaps after) the Russian civil war.

I think that, because of this censorship, Kautsky and Plekhanov unwittingly contributed to the popular notion today (in politics and academia) that Marx never believed any radical revolution to be possible in Russia (except for one led by the inept Russian bourgeoisie).

Well I don't know about the letter censorship honestly. Any information on that would be appreciated, it sounds interesting.

I suspect that Lenin & co. were able to read the 1882 Manifesto preface and get the gist that Marx thought that such a plan could possibly work.

As for the legitimacy of such a plan and the "radical democratic revolution", I'll leave that for another thread. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-is-not-marxist-but-neither-was.html


Capitalism was a political creation, not the inevitable working out of economic laws. 'Notes on the 1861 Reform' is a vital text, because it shows us the theoretical underpinnings for the vision of an agrarian socialism that Marx advanced in his letters to Vera Zasulich and Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Of course, the Second International Marxism of Georgi Plekhnanov and Karl Kautsky, with its Eurocentric vision of a gradual progression to socialism based on the growth of the productive forces, had no sympathy for Marx's late work. It is no surprise, then, that Plekhanov and later Kautsky refused to publish Marx's letter to Zasulich, despite the requests of the elderly Engels.

[Random Precision]

It was the "sided with the Whites" part I didn't get.

Well, I can't seem to find any evidence that he actively sided with the Whites during the Civil War. However, he only joined the Bolsheviks in 1920, when he could be sure of the war's outcome. His behavior before it definitely labels him an enemy of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the October Revolution.

[Intelligitimate]

Well, I can't seem to find any evidence that he actively sided with the Whites during the Civil War. However, he only joined the Bolsheviks in 1920, when he could be sure of the war's outcome. His behavior before it definitely labels him an enemy of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the October Revolution.

*Shrug*

So was Trotsky. He just switched sides in 1917.

"The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay." - Trotsky

"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" - Lenin

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/trotvslenin.htm

[Random Precision]

*Shrug*

So was Trotsky. He just switched sides in 1917.

C'mon, I know you aren't that unintelligent. Trotsky repudiated all his polemics against Lenin when he joined the Bolsheviks, and made it stick by playing a most important role in the success of the October Revolution and the following Civil War.

Vyshinsky, on the other hand, was a scumbag careerist who only joined the party in 1920 after he could be sure of its success.


"The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay." - Trotsky

"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" - Lenin

Written in 1913 and 1914, respectively. When you add to that the fact that few comrades indeed escaped being polemicized against by Lenin at least once (he probably even wrote a polemic against Nazdezhda for making borscht too many times for dinner :laugh:) your argument doesn't make much sense at all.

There was one time during the Civil War when Trotsky's orders were being questioned by many in the Party. In response, Lenin gave Trotsky a blank sheet of paper on which was written on the bottom: "Comrades, knowing the harsh character of Comrade Trotsky's orders, I am so convinced, so absolutely convinced, of the correctness, expedience and necessity for the good of our cause, of the orders issued by Comrade Trotsky, that I give them my full support. - Lenin". He then offered Trotsky as many blank sheets of paper like that as he needed. I think this speaks to Trotsky and Lenin's relationship much better than their polemics against one another before they were tested by revolution.

[gilhyle]

What is so incredibly sad - even now - about this kind of view is the profoundly childish conception of revolutionary politics that lies behind it. The demonization of disagreement and dissent within revolutionary ranks, the glorification of Lenin as an icon, the re-cycling of half-baked propaganda arguments countered seventy or eight years ago, without working through the responses written then and above all the living-in-the-past ..... its so pathetically sad.

[Intelligitimate]

C'mon, I know you aren't that unintelligent. I'm not the moron Trot bringing up a relatively minor figure's past anti-Bolshevism.



Trotsky repudiated all his polemics against Lenin when he joined the Bolsheviks, and made it stick by playing a most important role in the success of the October Revolution and the following Civil War. And then formed factions, a practice Lenin had banned, right after he died, and refused to go along with democratic centralism.



Vyshinsky, on the other hand, was a scumbag careerist who only joined the party in 1920 after he could be sure of its success. Again, something only a braindead Trot would say, given Trotsky's own non-Bolshevic past.



Written in 1913 and 1914, respectively. Your point? Oh wait, you don't have one, besides showing only a braindead Trot would bring up someone else's non-Bolshevik past...



When you add to that the fact that few comrades indeed escaped being polemicized against by Lenin at least once (he probably even wrote a polemic against Nazdezhda for making borscht too many times for dinner your argument doesn't make much sense at all. Except it makes perfect sense. You bring up Vyshinsky's non-Bolshevik past as some sort of condemnation of him, when it equally applies to Trotsky. Only an idiot would do something like this.



There was one time during the Civil War when Trotsky's orders were being questioned by many in the Party. In response, Lenin gave Trotsky a blank sheet of paper on which was written on the bottom: "Comrades, knowing the harsh character of Comrade Trotsky's orders, I am so convinced, so absolutely convinced, of the correctness, expedience and necessity for the good of our cause, of the orders issued by Comrade Trotsky, that I give them my full support. - Lenin". He then offered Trotsky as many blank sheets of paper like that as he needed. I think this speaks to Trotsky and Lenin's relationship much better than their polemics against one another before they were tested by revolution. I think Lenin's continued polemics against Trotsky speak louder than some piece of paper Trotsky gave to the Dewey Commission:

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, and Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html)
Once Again on the Trade Unions, The Current Situation, and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTB21.html)

[chebol]

The biggest stain on Vishinskii is his position on socialism and law. It shows clearly his rejection of both Marx and Lenin in so far as legal theory and the DoP/ transition to socialism.

Furthermore, his role in the death of Pashukanis (who while maybe not 100%
on things, at least understood, agreed with - and actually greatly developed - the basics of marxist legal theory) and his role in creating the abitrary legalism of the statist, bureaucratic monstrosity of Stalinism should make anyone think twice about his writings (some of which were actually ok, IMHO).

Much more important than whether he was a menshevik BEFORE the revolution. He blossomed as one AFTER the revolution - in style.

[Random Precision]

I'm not the moron Trot bringing up a relatively minor figure's past anti-Bolshevism.

I don't know how you could call Vyshinsky a "minor figure".


And then formed factions, a practice Lenin had banned, right after he died, and refused to go along with democratic centralism.

A practice which was intended to be temporary. In any case, Lenin himself formed factions and broke with democratic centralism too many times to count. Like when he sided with the Mensheviks on the issue of the Duma elections. Like his fight to turn the Bolsheviks toward a revolutionary perspective after Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin came out against the April Theses.


Again, something only a braindead Trot would say, given Trotsky's own non-Bolshevic past.

Please make a case that Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks for his own personal benefit (like Vyshinsky did) or shut the fuck up.


Your point? Oh wait, you don't have one, besides showing only a braindead Trot would bring up someone else's non-Bolshevik past...

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the point is that Lenin and Trotsky overcame the differences they had before the Revolution.


Except it makes perfect sense. You bring up Vyshinsky's non-Bolshevik past as some sort of condemnation of him, when it equally applies to Trotsky. Only an idiot would do something like this.

Find one prominent Bolshevik that Lenin never polemicized against. Go on.


I think Lenin's continued polemics against Trotsky speak louder than some piece of paper Trotsky gave to the Dewey Commission:

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, and Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html)
Once Again on the Trade Unions, The Current Situation, and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTB21.html)

Yea, so Trotsky was wrong about the trade unions. Lenin corrected him. So what?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But Trotsky was also wrong about the nature of the Soviet state. It was NOT a DOTP presiding over the last years or decades of the capitalist mode of production (which would have actually validated his idea of "permanent revolution"), but rather an RDDOTPP presiding over the beginning of the capitalist mode of production.

[Intelligitimate]

I don't know how you could call Vyshinsky a "minor figure".


Because he was.



A practice which was intended to be temporary.


What a joke.



Like his fight to turn the Bolsheviks toward a revolutionary perspective after Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin came out against the April Theses.


If I recall correctly, Stalin didn't have as much control over Pravda as Kamenev at the time.



Please make a case that Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks for his own personal benefit (like Vyshinsky did) or shut the fuck up.


I made the exact same case as the one you constructed against Vyshinsky.



I hate to keep repeating myself, but the point is that Lenin and Trotsky overcame the differences they had before the Revolution.


Except they didn't.



Find one prominent Bolshevik that Lenin never polemicized against. Go on.


Find one that Lenin railed against more than Trotsky...

[spartan]

Find one that Lenin railed against more than Trotsky...

In the end disagreeing with someone on certain issues isnt that important in the wider struggle.

What is important, however, is that Lenin went as far as to tell those still loyal to him to remove Stalin from his position of power because he was regarded as a threat to any sort of attempts at Democracy in Russia.

Did Lenin ever call for such an action against Trotsky?

As far as i know, everytime people were attacking Trotsky, during the civil war, it was Lenin who came to his defence time and time again.

Now compare this with Lenins desire to rid Stalin of any influential position in the party, to prevent him building up any more power than he already had, and anyone can see that Lenin obviously prefered Trotsky.

This attacking of Trotsky is opportunistic to say the least.

[Intelligitimate]

What is important, however, is that Lenin went as far as to tell those still loyal to him to remove Stalin from his position of power because he was regarded as a threat to any sort of attempts at Democracy in Russia.


This was only added in a postscript, after Stalin was rude to his wife over the phone for violating doctor's orders. In any case, this was read out loud at the 13th party Congress, and Stalin offered his resignation as General Secretary. Everyone, including Trotsky, refused it.


Nor does Lenin say anything about Stalin being “a threat to any sort of attempts at Democracy in Russia.” This is purely your invention, as Lenin only talks about replacing him with someone less rude.


Before the postscript, there is not a single word of condemnation toward Stalin, while Lenin points out Trotsky's non-Bolshevic past, considers Bukharin not fully Marxist, and brings up Kamenev and Zinoviev's treachery. These are incredibly serious compared to being “too rude.”



Now compare this with Lenins desire to rid Stalin of any influential position in the party, to prevent him building up any more power than he already had, and anyone can see that Lenin obviously prefered Trotsky.


Except this is crap. Trotsky was often not even consulted about what would be said during the Congresses. Lenin also calls Trotsky too bureaucratic in the same document.

[careyprice31]

The funny thing is stalin lumping Zinoviev and Kamenev in with Tortsky when in fact they did not like each other. They only turned towards Trotsky in the middle of the 1920's to form an alliance against stalin when they knew they had been defeated politically.

But they hated Trotsky. (I suspect, I do not know for sure, but I suspect, that was a factor in Kamenev's divorce from his wife Olga Davidovich who was Trotsky's sister. He hated her brother.)

[Holden Caulfield]

shock horror, most bolsheviks didnt like Trotskys manner, but they all admired his commitment, theory and actions,

including a certain J.Stalin,

[careyprice31]

"Vyshinsky was no minor figure"

Indeed he wasn't. I dont know how anyone can say that.

I could believe he joined opportunistically since when the bolsheviks seized power it was like the only thing by which an ambitious young man could make a career.

He bacme Stalin's man for the show trials in other words stalin found the perfect one for what he wanted since Vyshinsky conducted the trials he no doubt knew that if he ever lost favor his past would be held against him.

btw the arguments people have vs Trots. And Trots vs you. Makes me LOL. Honestly, you people and your thing about Trots....and Trots vs you.....

[Comrade Qwatt]

More like anti-proletarial bloc...

[Holden Caulfield]

More like anti-proletarial bloc...

bull, Trotsky had the support of the youth of the party, the army, students, but did not make full use to spare lives, secure the revolution and to not weaken the party.

whereas the others had their propaganda machine, and their control over the burecracy and an army of voting oppotunists/careersits, and used their power to remove men who would have been useful in the creation of a truely communist state,

i include Bukharin in the men who could have been useful, although i do not agree with him on many things he is entitled to his opinion as the party should have been democratic

[Comrade Qwatt]

bull, Trotsky had the support of the youth of the party, the army, students, but did not make full use to spare lives, secure the revolution and to not weaken the party.

whereas the others had their propaganda machine, and their control over the burecracy and an army of voting oppotunists/careersits, and used their power to remove men who would have been useful in the creation of a truely communist state,

i include Bukharin in the men who could have been useful, although i do not agree with him on many things he is entitled to his opinion as the party should have been democratic
Trotsky was an imperialist scumbag who had an authoritarian taste for murder, who had a personality defect for egotism, and who actively supported various class enemies. Such rebels deserved their fate and shouldn't be spoken of again...

[Leo]

So was Trotsky. He just switched sides in 1917.There is a world of difference between joining the Bolsheviks before the revolution and after the civil war. In the former, the Bolshevik party was the most radical revolutionary, uncompromising party in Russia and indeed it was, and was going to be obviously dangerous to be a Bolshevik in the future. No careerist would have joined the Bolsheviks before the revolution. However, after the civil war, the party had became the most comfortable place for the bourgeoisie to inhabit. Vyshinsky was not the only 'careerist' who had joined the party. There were tens of thousands of them, and 'Comrade Card-Index' happened to be their natural representer. Stalin is recorded saying to Dimitrov “Why did we win over Trotsky and others? It is well known that, after Lenin, Trotsky was the most popular in our land. But we had the support of the middle cadres ... Trotsky did not pay any attention to these cadres”. Indeed, this was why all the 'evil bastards', like Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, Radek, Pyatakov, Smirnov, Preobrazhensky, Krestinsky, Tomsky, Sokolnikov, Bubnov, Chicherin, Rykov and many many others who led the Bolshevik Party before had to be murdered. Almost the entire Politburo of the old Bolshevik party was killed. The 'middle cadres', the party bureaucracy had to murder them precisely because of this. Their executioners were the rising bourgeoisie who was re-taking the social status once lost. The old Bolsheviks had to die.

If one is to consider the Bolshevik party of 1917 to be revolutionary, than it is impossible to consider Stalin's CPSU anything but counter-revolutionary, and if one is to consider Stalin's CPSU as 'revolutionary', the old Bolshevik party necessarily becomes counter revolutionary.

[Holden Caulfield]

Trotsky was an imperialist scumbag who had an authoritarian taste for murder, who had a personality defect for egotism, and who actively supported various class enemies. Such rebels deserved their fate and shouldn't be spoken of again...

well firstly read what Leo said, and secondly what or who exactly do you support, it is a bit simplistic to just say a few slanders against Trotsky and not give your own outline view,

he was a egotist, so was Stalin, so was Lenin, so was Marx, so was Bukanin, etc..
however calling the man who arranged and carried out the revolutionay coup and the civil war an imperialist scumbag is sheer idiocy,

ok so "he had a taste for muder" in your words, how terrible, "such rebels deserve their fate" your kinda contradicting your own stance here a bit, a hero of the revolution deserves a sly ice axe to the head?

[Comrade Qwatt]

well firstly read what Leo said, and secondly what or who exactly do you support, it is a bit simplistic to just say a few slanders against Trotsky and not give your own outline view,

he was a egotist, so was Stalin, so was Lenin, so was Marx, so was Bukanin, etc..
however calling the man who arranged and carried out the revolutionay coup and the civil war an imperialist scumbag is sheer idiocy,

ok so "he had a taste for muder" in your words, how terrible, "such rebels deserve their fate" your kinda contradicting your own stance here a bit, a hero of the revolution deserves a sly ice axe to the head?
His imperialism comes from his involvement in the negotiations with Germany, and his wanting to declare 'revolutionary War' and invade Europe, a profoundly opportunistic and ultranationalist move, one which echoes of the bourgeois revolution against the feudals. Also his 'permanent revolution' and internationalism were degenerate social-imperialism at it's lowest. Using such military force does not engender class consciousness with the foreign workers, but simply allows the bourgeois to rally them under the banner of nationalism.

[Holden Caulfield]

who do you support?

you contradict yourself over and over again, he was blood thirsty, he is guilty of PEACE talks with Germany, he wanted to dominate europe through war,

he wanted to used military force, when he could have used it at any point until his exile however didnt to not weaken the party,

the bourgosie revolution against the feudals is a stage of marxism,

and as for being against the use of milirary force, what about any actions of leftists in the Spanish civil war, in Germany 1919-23, in Chinese civil war etc,