Trotsky: Traitor or Hero?

[Big Boss]

I have to be honest. I don't know much about the life of Leon Trotsky. But, I've heard some leftists that consider him to be a traitor to socialism while others state that he was an exemplary revolutionary. I just wanted to know the reasons why some consider him a traitor while other consider him to be a hero. Sorry if this was already discussed before. Thanks in advance comrades!!:)

[Psy]

He is considered a hero for saving Russia from defeat during the civil-war, also for leading the charge against Stalinism.


He is considered a traitor by Stalinists for leading the charge against Stalinism.

[Big Boss]

What about Marxist-Leninists? What do they think of him?

[spartan]

What about Marxist-Leninists? What do they think of him?

"Stalinist" is a derogatory term for "Marxist-Leninist" so they are basically the same thing.

[Psy]

What about Marxist-Leninists? What do they think of him?
Lenin never through Trotsky was a traitor, he saw Trotsky as a pain in the ass but not a traitor. Mostly Lenin and Trotsky were budding heads since 1903 but it was just simply a rivalry between two Marxist theorist that had differing views but neither saw the other in a totally bad light.

[Psy]

"Stalinist" is a derogatory term for "Marxist-Leninist" so they are basically the same thing.

By Stalinist I mean thought they follow the teaching of Stalin as they are radically different then those of Lenin.

[Big Boss]

He is considered a hero for saving Russia from defeat during the civil-war, also for leading the charge against Stalinism.

So that means that he's considered a hero in Russia or outside of the country? Sorry, just curious!:)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that he was a traitor or a hero.

I just think he was an asshole. Less of an asshole than Stalin or Lenin, to be sure, but an asshole none the less.

[Holden Caulfield]

a hero of sorts, we should not have a cult about these men and I myself do not 'like' labelling myself as a 'name-ist',
however for the work that he has done both in theories and in action and the fact he finally was 'matyred' for his beliefs make him in my eyes pretty much a 'hero'

[Q]

What about Marxist-Leninists? What do they think of him?
Which "marxist-leninists"? Both Stalinists and Trotskyists claim the term (the "Trotskyist" Left Opposition originally identified itself as Bolsheviki-Leninists, the term "Trotskyist" was originally a curseword from the Stalinists (whereas "Stalinism" was given a scientific meaning). Today Trotskyists mostly identify themselves as such to have clarity on their position).


So that means that he's considered a hero in Russia or outside of the country? Sorry, just curious!:)
Stalinism had a play on the international arena via the Comintern in the thirties. Spain (where the Stalinists played a decisive derailing role) and France (popular front tactics) are a few examples.

I guess I'm biased, but the work that Trotsky did against the Stalinist degeneration was quite monumental. He explained why Stalinism arose from the Russian Revolution and we can learn from it why this mechanism will happen in any country if the revolution gets isolated, especially in a backward country.
You can read more about this in his book The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/).

[Big Boss]

I just think he was an asshole. Less of an asshole than Stalin or Lenin, to be sure, but an asshole none the less.

But why?


Which "marxist-leninists"?

The marxists that claim to follow Lenin but not Stalin.


You can read more about this in his book The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/).

Thanks for the info!:)

[Colonello Buendia]

he was the lesser of 3 evils i my view. I used to be a trot and at that point I saw him as anti-stalinist true Marxist Leninist.

[blackstone]

He is as much a hero as George Washington or Napoleon is.

[Lenin II]

What about Marxist-Leninists? What do they think of him?
We view him as a traitor to the movement a pawn of the bourgeoisie except for his writings on fascism.

Lenin never through Trotsky was a traitor, he saw Trotsky as a pain in the ass but not a traitor.
However, he did call him a “swine,” a “windbag,” “opportunistic,” says that his theories and pamphlets are full of “brazen lies” and “do not understand…the transition between bourgeoisie revolution and proletariat revolution.” He also says that his eloquent phrases are “hollow,” and that he was a “spineless conciliator,” in fact he said he was, “leader of the ‘conciliators,” and that he had an “entire lack of principle.”

“What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Left! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to the Social-Democrat!”

By Stalinist I mean thought they follow the teaching of Stalin as they are radically different then those of Lenin.
They are slightly different, but they do not “radically” differ. Stalin changed precious little about Lenin’s theories—he merely added to them. Look at Trotsky if you want the real revisionist.


So that means that he's considered a hero in Russia or outside of the country? Sorry, just curious!
Stalin is the one considered a hero nowadays.

[Random Precision]

However, he did call him a “swine,” a “windbag,” “opportunistic,” says that his theories and pamphlets are full of “brazen lies” and “do not understand…the transition between bourgeoisie revolution and proletariat revolution.” He also says that his eloquent phrases are “hollow,” and that he was a “spineless conciliator,” in fact he said he was, “leader of the ‘conciliators,” and that he had an “entire lack of principle.”

“What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Left! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to the Social-Democrat!”

I would be willing to make a bet that all of these come from before 1917, and that you found them in Ludo Martens' book.

No soup for you!

[Lenin II]

I would be willing to make a bet that all of these come from before 1917, and that you found them in Ludo Martens' book.
No soup for you!
Firstly, why should it matter who the author of a book is? And incidently that is a negative. They come from Lenin's Collected Works and reports to congress. He also condemned Trotsky in about 1920 over trade union bit.The fact is, Stalin joined in the early 20th century, about 1905.Trotsky joined in July of 1917 when he "suddenly" became a hardcore Bolshevik. And the further fact is that Lenin condemned Trotsky on many occasions, and merely called Stalin rude in so-called "will."

And I prefer chowder anyway.

[Random Precision]

Firstly, why should it matter who the author of a book is? And incidently that is a negative. They come from Lenin's Collected Works and reports to congress.

My apologies, if that is the case. May I have the specific citations?


He also condemned Trotsky in about 1920 over trade union bit. The fact is, Stalin joined in the early 20th century, about 1905.Trotsky joined in July of 1917 when he "suddenly" became a hardcore Bolshevik.

Trotsky at that time was calling for a workers government when Stalin, along with Kamenev and Zinoviev, were arguing that the workers should support the Provisional Government. He even published this rubbish in Pravda:


Our slogan is not the meaningless "down with war". Our slogan is pressure upon the Provisional Government with the aim of compelling it... to make an attempt to induce all the warring countries to open immediate negotiations... and until then every man remains at his fighting post.


And the further fact is that Lenin condemned Trotsky on many occasions, and merely called Stalin rude in so-called "will."

Well, he also condemned Stalin for his views on nationalities and his role in the Georgian Affair:


I think that Stalin's haste and his infaturation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism", played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles...

The responsibility for this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

- "The Question of Nationalities or 'Autonomization'", Selected Works Vol. III, pp. 750-53

[Intelligitimate]

Trotsky is definitely a traitor. I think his plan to testify to the Dies Committee (more commonly the House Un-American Activities Committee) about Soviet agents in exchange for a US visa more than demonstrates his rat-like nature. Trotsky also lied to the Dewey Commission about his involvement with the Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc. We know because his pathetic ass had to sell all his papers for money, but he sold them on the condition they couldn't be opened until the 80s (his wife and son would later sell his remaining stuff). It was literally boxes of stuff. Previous drafts of his works, letters to people, etc. In it, they proved he did indeed form a bloc with the Zinovievists, as the Soviets said all along. Trotsky even tried to destroy this stuff, but apparently didn't get everything.

[Psy]

Trotsky is definitely a traitor. I think his plan to testify to the Dies Committee (more commonly the House Un-American Activities Committee) about Soviet agents in exchange for a US visa more than demonstrates his rat-like nature.

Soviet agents? If that is true they would be the GRU the same people that were trying to kill him in Turkey and latter did in Mexico. Since Trotsky needed protection from the GRU he needed something to trade so it would have been logical for Trotsky to have traded the names of the murders after him (if Trotsky did so).



Trotsky also lied to the Dewey Commission about his involvement with the Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc. We know because his pathetic ass had to sell all his papers for money, but he sold them on the condition they couldn't be opened until the 80s (his wife and son would later sell his remaining stuff). It was literally boxes of stuff. Previous drafts of his works, letters to people, etc. In it, they proved he did indeed form a bloc with the Zinovievists, as the Soviets said all along. Trotsky even tried to destroy this stuff, but apparently didn't get everything.

Big deal, there was opposition blocks in Lenin's time, Lenin allowed opposition. It is also critical in a workers state that there is opposition so there is debate.

[Intelligitimate]

Soviet agents? If that is true they would be the GRU the same people that were trying to kill him in Turkey and latter did in Mexico. Since Trotsky needed protection from the GRU he needed something to trade so it would have been logical for Trotsky to have traded the names of the murders after him (if Trotsky did so).
He wasn't doing this to protect himself, that is complete garbage. Trotsky's line did a complete 180 after he sent a letter to the USSR in 1932, begging them to let him back in, but still refusing to form factions. After the letter went unanswered, Trotsky began his campaign against the USSR, which included the call to violently overthrow the government. And his activities with the Zinovievists and his attempts to undermine the USSR by naming spies was for exactly that purpose.

He wasn't offed soon enough.


Big deal, there was opposition blocks in Lenin's time, Lenin allowed opposition. It is also critical in a workers state that there is opposition so there is debate.
On the contrary, all factions had been banned by Lenin. This is why Trotsky's ass was given the boot to begin with.

[Random Precision]

Trotsky is definitely a traitor. I think his plan to testify to the Dies Committee (more commonly the House Un-American Activities Committee) about Soviet agents in exchange for a US visa more than demonstrates his rat-like nature.

Bullshit. Trotsky never had any documentary evidence, or even the faintest idea what Soviet agents were up to in Latin America. His planned testimony did not promise to reveal anything new to the US government about Stalinism.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/corr-a02.shtml

[Tower of Bebel]

Hands off Trotsky! You may agree or disagree with his analyses, but we cannot forget that internationalism and revolutiuonary socialism were his principles.

[Lenin II]

Hands off Trotsky! You may agree or disagree with his analyses, but we cannot forget that internationalism and revolutiuonary socialism were his principles.
If by "internationalism" you mean "socialist imperialism through a chauvenist foreign policy," then yes. If by "revolutionary socialism," you mean "helping out the bourgeoisie," then yes.

[Psy]

If by "internationalism" you mean "socialist imperialism through a chauvenist foreign policy," then yes. If by "revolutionary socialism," you mean "helping out the bourgeoisie," then yes.

It was Stalin that was kissing up to the imperialist power, Stalin disbanded the 3rd International to please the bourgeoisie and ignored the revolutionary situation following WWII when armed uprisings against the bourgeoisie were all throughout the former Axis powers. The Italian revolutionary army (they were not simply guerrillas, they were a army that even used a large numberer of captured German tanks in battles in their heavily armed revolution) was the ones that did away with Mussolini yet Stalin sat there at let the bourgeoisie crush them along with the other armed revolutions.

[Tower of Bebel]

If by "internationalism" you mean "socialist imperialism through a chauvenist foreign policy," then yes. If by "revolutionary socialism," you mean "helping out the bourgeoisie," then yes.

I'm adding to spy's comment that this suites Stalin well.

[Intelligitimate]

Bullshit. Trotsky never had any documentary evidence, or even the faintest idea what Soviet agents were up to in Latin America. His planned testimony did not promise to reveal anything new to the US government about Stalinism.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/corr-a02.shtml

The article, as is usual for Trotskyists, treats Trotsky's own public remarks on the issue as unquestionable. However, we know Trotsky often did lie publicly about his activities. For instance, as I said earlier, we know he lied to Dewey Commission about his involvment with the Zinovievists. We also know his public statements are lies about his intent with the Dies Committee.



To return to the article in The independent, a Professor William Chase of the University of Pittsburgh was quoted at the end stating that he has 'concrete information' to prove that Trotsky was an FBI informant. Red Youth has subsequently obtained this information (the source relevant to this particular revelation is US State archives - RG 84 or from Prof. Chase himself. Any other evidence will be referred to after the quotation).
According to the Professor, the information Trotsky provided to the FBI was a means to obtain a US visa. But as the Professor points out, 'By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa.'
Trotsky's hysterical allegations were directed against anyone who might share sympathies with the USSR under Stalin. In America the ACDLT campaigned for the asylum of Trotsky in the US. At the time of the World Congress Against War and Fascism and the Latin American Labour Congress, Trotsky asked his supporters to 'mail as soon as possible known names of congress delegates who are GPU agents'. Prof. Chase admits himself the ridiculous nature of these allegations which leads one to think of the number of honest proletarian and democratic persons whose names who were supplied to the FBI, 'Trotsky's accusations that liberals and radicals who did not share his views on certain issues were Stalinists or GPU agents further diminished his support in the US.'
But there is more. With this array of high-flown allegations Trotsky accepted an invitation to appear in front of the 'Dies Committee'. This is otherwise known as the US Congress House Un-American Activities Committee. It was linked to overtly fascist figures, conducted anti-democratic witch-hunts and played a leading role in passing many anti-labour laws. Such was the anti-fascist and proletarian stance of Trotsky (fortunately, Trotsky never appeared on this committee because he never got a visa, but as we shall see he passed on information to the US government by other means). Now we come to the central point of this Red Youth exclusive: Trotsky's courtship of the FBI:
'In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco's Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern's [the Communist international's] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.'
'Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor's memo to the FBI.
'...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies' concerns.'
Well, there you have it. The outwardly anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US was shared by Trotsky.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

[bezdomni]

On the contrary, all factions had been banned by Lenin.

More fully, they were banned by a decision of the entire central committee under Lenin's leadership...including (if my memory serves) Trotsky himself, at the time.

As was usual for him, he didn't openly disagree with Lenin until after Lenin was dead and gone.

[lombas]

Traitor, hero - behold, the rhetoric of the idealist, unwilling to abandon youth's thought.

[Dros]

Trotsky was a revolutionary. He made great contributions to the Bolshevik revolution.

He was WRONG on a lot of issues of line and that in part drove him to abandon the USSR for a lot of reasons (and Stalin's errors also played a part in this). I don't think he was an evil dog. He made great possitive contributions early on. Later, his incorrect line and some opportunism drove him to less admirable actions.

[Holden Caulfield]

you have fairly good (albiet i dont agree with half) opinions for a Hoxhaist,
usually you guys seem to want to go back in time and ice axe his infant brains out

[Awful Reality]

Trotsky was a prominent revolutionary figure, an excellent military leader, and an excellent politician. http://http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm This made me a Trotskyist. It should be required reading for all marxists.

[bezdomni]

Trotsky was a revolutionary. He made great contributions to the Bolshevik revolution.


Eh, his role in the revolution is frankly exaggerated. Obviously, he did some useful strategic things...but he also did lots of fucked up shit like refusing to recruit peasants into the red army because he didn't view them as having any revolutionary potential.

The revolution would have probably been cleaner had Trotsky been replaced by somebody with a more rigorous understanding of Marxism-Leninism.

[Awful Reality]

If by "internationalism" you mean "socialist imperialism through a chauvenist foreign policy," then yes. If by "revolutionary socialism," you mean "helping out the bourgeoisie," then yes.

What about a chauvinist nationalist policy?

And Trotsky and the opposition were some of the first critics of Stalinist denationalization, which was essentially creating a profit motive and a bourgoise class.

[Eleftherios]

Eh, his role in the revolution is frankly exaggerated. Obviously, he did some useful strategic things...but he also did lots of fucked up shit like refusing to recruit peasants into the red army because he didn't view them as having any revolutionary potential.

The revolution would have probably been cleaner had Trotsky been replaced by somebody with a more rigorous understanding of Marxism-Leninism.


I disagree. I suggest that you read John Reed's novel Ten Days that Shook the World (no offense). The book, which was approved by Lenin, praised both Lenin AND Trotsky for their work in the revolutiuon.

[lombas]

"We do not imprison the real anarchists, but criminals and bandits who cover themselves by claiming to be anarchists."

Cheap, very cheap.

:glare:

[Devrim]

I disagree. I suggest that you read John Reed's novel Ten Days that Shook the World (no offense). The book, which was approved by Lenin, praised both Lenin AND Trotsky for their work in the revolutiuon.



On a historical point, my copy of ten days that shook the world has a statement from Lenin saying that 'it captures the spirit of the revolution if not all of the facts'.

While I think that Trotsky was one of the most important party militants during the actually revolution, Reeds book is not good evidence for this.

Devrim

[Lenin II]

What about a chauvinist nationalist policy?
Yes, Stalin did make mistakes. You will never hear me say that everything he ever did was perfect. His nationalist policy helped destroy the fascist movement and win the war.
What has this to do with permanent revolution anyway? The theory of P-L is chauvinist in that it thinks socialist imperialism can bring socialism, nay, rather force it upon native peoples of any given state, regardless of any material conditions. The Comintern and P-L are two very different things.

And Trotsky and the opposition were some of the first critics of Stalinist denationalization, which was essentially creating a profit motive and a bourgoise class.
Right, I'm sure Leon "Stalin is the greatest danger during WWII" Trotsky helped disassemble the bourgeoisie power.

[Redmau5]

rather force it upon native peoples of any given state, regardless of any material conditions.

You mean, as Stalin forced it upon the people of Eastern Europe after the Second World War? Was that revolution from within, or having "socialism" forced from without?

And by the sounds of things, you really need to read up on the theory of Permanent Revolution, because from what you've said about it, you have absolutely no idea what it is.

[chimx]

Trotsky died a long time ago. For workers today he is just another historical figure. Whether he is a traitor to Russia, or a hero to the early 20th century working class strikes me as totally irrelevant.

All that should matter is if any of his ideas for the organization of working people is relevant for us today.

[Tower of Bebel]

Yes, Stalin did make mistakes. You will never hear me say that everything he ever did was perfect. His nationalist policy helped destroy the fascist movement and win the war.
What has this to do with permanent revolution anyway? The theory of P-L is chauvinist in that it thinks socialist imperialism can bring socialism, nay, rather force it upon native peoples of any given state, regardless of any material conditions. The Comintern and P-L are two very different things.

You'd rather force bourgeois development upon native peoples? Permanent revolution combines the 'April theses' with 'imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism'. No revolutionary democracy means a dictatorship (look at Iran, the revolutionary cases on the African continent, ...).
One problem is, when Permanent Revolution would be simply wrong, what about the Soviet Union? Was it wrong to start the Revolution of October (or even the revolution of February)? Was it wrong to "force" a new way of development upon the Russians?

Btw, talking about fascism, why wasn't fascism stopped before it came to power? I don't care about the military defeat of fascism in 1945. There was an imperialist war going on which killed more than 40 million people. It is the responsibility of a revolutionary to stop fascism before it can inflict such damage, not to defeat it because you have vast resources of manpower and materials. There were some big mistakes made during the 20's and 30's, and you cannot simply say it were the Trotskyists who were responsible since the Forth Internationale was so small.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The theory of 'Permanent Revolution' is incredibly idealist. Stalin recognized the need to secure the existent soviet state. This was especially necessary during WWII when Nazi invasion was a major threat. While Trotsky's role in the Red Army (during the civil war) was significant, and worth honor, after Lenin's death his arguments were highly reactionary. The reason is without first constructing a secure socialist state, "world-wide" revolution isn't even possible. The primary focus should be within the state border, not outside of it. With WWII, for example, it was necessary to choose the best action, which isn't always what you originally plan, or would otherwise argue in favor, but it is however what will prevent the deaths of many more comrades, soldiers and working people! (which they most certainly needed to prevent after the civil war) If such action was not taken, the soviet state would have been in ruins.

It cannot be argued that Trotsky would have "done better", he never carried out any act that could allow for such an argument, but history does show his reluctance which there is no time for during war.

Securing "socialism in one state" is necessary before constructing it elsewhere, otherwise there are threats inside and outside of the state. A nazi invasion NEEDED to be prevented at all cost. Dictatorship of the Proletariat involves securing the proletarian state, why construct it and not put all effort to defend it? Trotsky(ists) deny the need for centralized organization and without such it is impossible to prevent things like Nazi invasion and counterrevolution.

[BIG BROTHER]

All I can say is that I consider him a hero, but of course I don't consider him perfect.

[ern]

Completely agree with Bakunin about the imperialist nature of WW2 and this is what separates the internationalists from the Stalinists and the Trotskyists who were unable to resist the ideological offensive of the ruling class concerning the war.
As for Trotsky he was a revolutionary, but one who was unable to carry out a complete radical critique of the defeat of the Revolutionary wave and was also unable to fully understand all of the implications of capitalism's entry into decadence. This mean that whilst seeing the danger of Stalinism he was unable to understand the true depth of the depth of the revolution and the victory of Russian national capital represented by Stalin's crushing of the party and the revolutionary proletariat (see our article How Stalin wiped out the militants of the October 1917 Revoution http://en.internationalism.org/wr/312/stalin) (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/312/stalin)
nor the real depth of the counter-revolution, i.e., his conception of the 4th International, his support for the Spanish "revolution" all of which were based on seeing the existence of the possibility of the proletariat still being able to carry out the revolution, whereas it had been crushed by the combined forces of democracy, Stalinism and Fascism and was being ready for the mass slaughter of WW2.
Stalin's murder of Trotsky was done to silence this international revolutionary figure and his ability to come out against the war In this act he fulfilled an important task for the rest of the international bourgeoisie
For a more detailed analysis of Trotskys contribution to the revolutionary history of the working class see our article 1940: assassination of Leon Trotsky http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm

[Tower of Bebel]

Securing "socialism in one state" is necessary before constructing it elsewhere, otherwise there are threats inside and outside of the state. A nazi invasion NEEDED to be prevented at all cost. Dictatorship of the Proletariat involves securing the proletarian state, why construct it and not put all effort to defend it? Trotsky(ists) deny the need for centralized organization and without such it is impossible to prevent things like Nazi invasion and counterrevolution.

What do you mean by the defence of the USSR against fascism? I hope you don't support Stalin's policy?

[Random Precision]

The theory of 'Permanent Revolution' is incredibly idealist.

Please don't call things "idealist" unless you have some idea what they are.


Stalin recognized the need to secure the existent soviet state.

And Trotsky didn't?


This was especially necessary during WWII when Nazi invasion was a major threat.

Which has what to do with anything.


While Trotsky's role in the Red Army (during the civil war) was significant, and worth honor, after Lenin's death his arguments were highly reactionary.

Unlike Stalin, who actively discouraged revolution in Germany, China, Spain...


The reason is without first constructing a secure socialist state, "world-wide" revolution isn't even possible.

Yes, that sounds like something Lenin said. What was it again?


At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed.

Oh right, that's it. :rolleyes:


The primary focus should be within the state border, not outside of it. With WWII, for example, it was necessary to choose the best action, which isn't always what you originally plan, or would otherwise argue in favor, but it is however what will prevent the deaths of many more comrades, soldiers and working people! (which they most certainly needed to prevent after the civil war) If such action was not taken, the soviet state would have been in ruins.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm confident in saying that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


It cannot be argued that Trotsky would have "done better", he never carried out any act that could allow for such an argument, but history does show his reluctance which there is no time for during war.

Yes, as I can recall he was reluctant to make a revolution, and thus sided with Zinoviev, Kamenev, and your buddy Stalin against Lenin in October. Thus all hope for revolution was crushed. Oh, and he refused to serve as Red Army commander, thus ensuring the victory of counterrevolution.


Securing "socialism in one state" is necessary before constructing it elsewhere, otherwise there are threats inside and outside of the state. A nazi invasion NEEDED to be prevented at all cost. Dictatorship of the Proletariat involves securing the proletarian state, why construct it and not put all effort to defend it?

I suppose it is also necessary to use the international revolutionary movement as a foreign policy arm of the "socialist state" in its maneuvers with imperialist powers.


Trotsky(ists) deny the need for centralized organization and without such it is impossible to prevent things like Nazi invasion and counterrevolution.

He didn't and we don't.


So in conclusion, you clearly know as little about these matters as you did when you were a Trot just a few months ago. Stop posting on these boards and use the extra time to read a little before you come back.

[proleterian fist]

Well he was an opposite of Stalin so therefore he can be considered as a traitor for Stalinists but I think he can't be as a traitor in real.
He saved Russia from civil war and he was founder of Red Army.

His theories were closer to Marxism than Stalin.He lived an exile life for ages and had been arrested by Stalin.Those were Stalin's mistakes I think.

[Nosotros]

I will always remember Kronstadt, I will never forget or forgive. I will always remember Nestor Makhno and the authoritarian nature of Bolshevism. Trotsky was a man who wanted more and more authoritarianism. The only good he did was to highlight the threat of fascism, a dictatorship similar in someways to his own.