Trotsky

[nvm]

Many call him an opportunist and a counter revolutionary, and many follow his ideas. What do you think about trotsky?
I personaly think that Trotsky was an orthodox marxist, he was against bureaucrats and he was democratic. If Trotsky was not exiled maybe there would still be a Soviet Union nowdays.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't think he was Lenin's equal, but I support him.

[F9]

i must say that i dont know much about trotsky ti critisize him so i vote neutral!

Fuserg9:star:

[RedAnarchist]

I would put neutral, as I'm not in a position to come to a conclusion about him.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wasn't Trotsky partially responsible for the suppression at Kronstadt?

Anyway, I'm don't have enough knowledge about the man to make a judgement one way or another.

[Tower of Bebel]

Wasn't Trotsky partially responsible for the suppression at Kronstadt?

Anyway, I'm don't have enough knowledge about the man to make a judgement one way or another.

He was because he was the 'peoples commissar' responsible for the actions of the (Red) Army.
Don't emphase on Trotsky, because a commissar is part of the government. Since the Bolsheviks were the leading movement in the USSR you can conclude that the Bolsheviks in general were responsible for any actions taken against the rebels of Kronstadt.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I see him negavity because he shouldn't believe in worldwide revolution when many people do not know what is trotskyism.

However, it is true that he sets up gulag or responsible for it?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I am going to have to say negative. Although Trotsky himself was never as annoying as most of the groups in the here and now who follow his teachings.

"The sparts say the rest of you go to hell and everyone else is a Stalinist"
-David Rovics

p.s. Did I really quote someone who selfidentifies as an anarchist?

[Vanguard1917]

One of the finest Marxists that history has produced. A visionary who possessed the ability to see things clearer than most of his contemporaries. A relentless and untiring critic of Stalinist reaction, who stood his ground to the death. A staunch believer in working people's potential to change the world and make history.

You can say that my opinion of Trotksy is overall quite positive.

[Lector Malibu]

I'm not a fan of the Trots

[RHIZOMES]

I don't really particularly mind Trotsky himself, I just dislike most of his followers.

[thejambo1]

i have to say as an anarchist its a negative for me.

[Maybe-not]

Mildly positive. Trots can be just as good Marxists as anyone else.

[nvm]

Wasn't Trotsky partially responsible for the suppression at Kronstadt?

Anyway, I'm don't have enough knowledge about the man to make a judgement one way or another.


Well Zinoviev did the negotiations with Krostand. Trotsky led the Army as he was the leader of the Red Army . Krostand was repressed because when the ice melted the Westerners would have used this port to invade. to see how the Krostandt Rebellion was beneficial to th capitalists you have to see that the stock market the day of the rebellion went up 10% as a result of the rebellion . And that a French newspaper wrote about the rebellion 10days before it actualy happened!!!!!

[nvm]

I see him negavity because he shouldn't believe in worldwide revolution when many people do not know what is trotskyism.

However, it is true that he sets up gulag or responsible for it?

The gulags(as we know them) we set up by Stalin. It is true that the Bolsheviks sent people in exile. But those were White army fascists!!!!!
Stalin sent EVERYONE who disagreed with him to the gulags. So i do not get ur point

[nvm]

i have to say as an anarchist its a negative for me.
Can you justify your response?

[nvm]

I don't really particularly mind Trotsky himself, I just dislike most of his followers.

Yes trotskyists are sectarians and some groups are idiotic. That is why i joined the IMT the only good Trotskyist organization:P

[RNK]

Use the edit button, quadruple post = retarded.

Trotsky had about 2 or three good years. The rest of his life, he was fairly useless.

And his followers are more fanatical than Avakianists, split easier than a banana, and are some of the most unrelenting sectarians I've ever encountered.

I voted Positive.

[thejambo1]

in order to justify myself to mtlyouth, all i have to say that trotsky was no friend of the anarchists. it is a well known fact.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like with Stalin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1081569&postcount=8), this post-Trot, post-ML revolutionary Marxist has a "middle of the road" opinion on the mere Marxist Trotsky (some good, some bad). The difference is, while my bias regarding Stalin leans more to the negative within the "middle of the road," my bias regarding Trotsky leans slightly to the positive.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html

[Gitfiddle Jim]

I don't know enough about Trotsky to pass a judgment, so I voted neutral.

[SocialDemocracy19]

I would like to say that the early menshevik trotsky was a good one, but he joined the bolsheviks in being worried about oppression of the bolsheviks towards the mensheviks.

Many call him an opportunist and a counter revolutionary, and many follow his ideas. What do you think about trotsky?
I personaly think that Trotsky was an orthodox marxist, he was against bureaucrats and he was democratic. If Trotsky was not exiled maybe there would still be a Soviet Union nowdays.

whos to say wether or not he would have taken the same action stalin did in killing any opposition, as he clearly did so to many anarchist movements in Lenins russia.
We have seen it all to many times where leaders have good intentions and seem to be for the people but once given power use it in an authoritarian method.

Therefore I am neutral because I support trotsky in his early days as a social democrat menshevik, but once he joined the bolsheviks I see to many facist aspects.

[SocialDemocracy19]

I would like to say that the early menshevik trotsky was a good one, but he joined the bolsheviks in being worried about oppression of the bolsheviks towards the mensheviks.

Many call him an opportunist and a counter revolutionary, and many follow his ideas. What do you think about trotsky?
I personaly think that Trotsky was an orthodox marxist, he was against bureaucrats and he was democratic. If Trotsky was not exiled maybe there would still be a Soviet Union nowdays.

whos to say wether or not he would have taken the same action stalin did in killing any opposition, as he clearly did so to many anarchist movements in Lenins russia.
We have seen it all to many times where leaders have good intentions and seem to be for the people but once given power use it in an authoritarian method.

Therefore I am neutral because I support trotsky in his early days as a social democrat menshevik, but once he joined the bolsheviks I see to many facist aspects.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't think the "Menshevik" Trotsky was better. I think it's obvious that the closer he was to lenin the better.

SocDem19, are you in support of the Mensheviks?

[Luís Henrique]

I would like to say that the early menshevik trotsky was a good one, but he joined the bolsheviks in being worried about oppression of the bolsheviks towards the mensheviks.

Do you have some basis to this weird statement?

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

I don't know enough about Trotsky to pass a judgment, so I voted neutral.

He invaded anarchist ukraine and massacred the Anarchist army, dissolved the workers soviets and chased Makhno into western Europe.

[A.J.]

....it cannot be denied that Trotsky fought well in the period of October. Yes, that is true, Trotsky did, indeed, fight well in October; but Trotsky was not the only one who fought well in the period of October. Even people like the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who then stood side by side with the Bolsheviks, also fought well. In general, I must say that in the period of a victorious uprising, when the enemy is isolated and the uprising is growing, it is not difficult to fight well. At such moments even backward people become heroes.

The proletarian struggle is not, however, an uninterrupted advance, an unbroken chain of victories. The proletarian struggle also has its trials, its defeats. The genuine revolutionary is not one who displays courage in the period of a victorious uprising, but one who, while fighting well during the victorious advance of the revolution, also displays courage when the revolution is in retreat, when the proletariat suffers defeat; who does not lose his head and does not funk when the revolution suffers reverses, when the enemy achieves success; who does not become panic-stricken or give way to despair when the revolution is in a period of retreat. The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries did not fight badly in the period of October, and they supported the Bolsheviks. But who does not know that those "brave" fighters became panic-stricken in the period of Brest, when the advance of German imperialism drove them to despair and hysteria? It is a very sad but indubitable fact that Trotsky, who fought well in the period of October, did not, in the period of Brest, in the period when the revolution suffered temporary reverses, possess the courage to display sufficient staunchness at that difficult moment and to refrain from following in the footsteps of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. Beyond question, that moment was a difficult one; one had to display exceptional courage and imperturbable coolness not to be dismayed, to retreat in good time, to accept peace in good time, to withdraw the proletarian army out of range of the blows of German imperialism, to preserve the peasant reserves and, after obtaining a respite in this way, to strike at the enemy with renewed force. Unfortunately, Trotsky was found to lack this courage and revolutionary staunchness at that difficult moment.

In Trotsky's opinion, the principal lesson of the proletarian revolution is "not to funk" during October. That is wrong, for Trotsky's assertion contains only a particle of the truth about the lessons of the revolution. The whole truth about the lessons of the proletarian revolution is "not to funk" not only when the revolution is advancing, but also when it is in retreat, when the enemy is gaining the upper hand and the revolution is suffering reverses. The revolution did not end with October. October was only the beginning of the proletarian revolution. It is bad to funk when the tide of insurrection is rising; but it is worse to funk when the revolution is passing through severe trials after power has been captured. To retain power on the morrow of the revolution is no less important than to capture power....

J. V. Stalin
TROTSKYISM OR LENINISM?
Speech Delivered at the Plenum of
the Communist Group in the A.U.C.C.T.U.,
November 19, 1924
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TL24.html

[The Third Camp]

I'm not a fan of the Trots


I wouldn't imagine that you would be, with a signature like 'Tiocfaidh Ár Lá'

As one would imagine, I voted positive.

Trotsky's two key works 'The Permanent Revolution' and 'The Transitional Programme' are indispensible for marxists seeking to apply the marxist programme to everyday sruggles and to analyse situations in the 3rd world. Other works on Fascism, the stalinist bureacracy and the 4th International are also extremely important.

Just as I would see Leninism as a continuation of Marxism, I would see Trotskyism as a further continuation.

The best way I could explain Trotsky would be to call him the only person correctly applying the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin to the world situation and putting forward a principled revolutionary programme up until 1940.

[AGITprop]

Use the edit button, quadruple post = retarded.

Trotsky had about 2 or three good years. The rest of his life, he was fairly useless.

And his followers are more fanatical than Avakianists, split easier than a banana, and are some of the most unrelenting sectarians I've ever encountered.

I voted Positive.
I must say you do have style.

[Cryotank Screams]

I personaly think that Trotsky was an orthodox marxist

Trotsky wasn't an orthodox Marxist.

[Colonello Buendia]

I'm neutral, of the Bolshies he was the least of a prat however Wat Tyler is right, he did bad stuff to Anarchists, I used to be a trot so I also appreciate his less bad side.

[Enragé]

Depends on what you mean. His theory is good, very good, but I'd have shot him in 1920. [voted neutral]

[abbielives!]

I like what Emma Goldman had to say about him:TROTSKY PROTESTS TOO MUCH
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html

I vote negative.

ps- I was once a Trotskyist

[Random Precision]

I like what Emma Goldman had to say about him:TROTSKY PROTESTS TOO MUCH
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html

I vote negative.

ps- I was once a Trotskyist

I wonder how many people were "Trotskyists" but moved on to anarchism or Stalinism in a few weeks before even reading what the Old Man had to say. Judging from this site, it would appear to be far too many.

[Fiskpure]

A good book on Trotsky, "My Life" - from his point of view.

I'm not a Trotskyist, but he was the leader of the opposition and the trusted man, by Lenin, to fight 'the trio'. In my eyes, he was a true internationalist and dedicated his life to the revolution, which later claimed his life.

I've always wanted to know, based on my current studies on R.S.F.S.R. and the early Soviet Union, who was 'supposed' to be the successor? In Lenins eyes, Trotsky had his 'own' views and did not go with the flow, if you like. Correct me if I'm wrong, you always learn out of your mistakes, heh.

:star3:

[Redmau5]

I wouldn't imagine that you would be, with a signature like 'Tiocfaidh Ár Lá'

That's an odd statement. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá is simply Irish for 'Our day will come'. A statement which I also happen to believe.

And to all the people saying 'I don't mind Trotsky, just his followers'.

Did you actually know Trotsky?

[Fiskpure]

Did you actually know Trotsky?

His tough methods, speak very well for him. Under the first months of the civil war, most of the Red Army was retreating and retreating, until Trotsky arrived. After the capture of Kazan, Trotsky arrived in Sviyazhsk with his train, fully equipped with revolutionary soldiers.

He re-captured Kazan in a month, by a new tactic; placing machine-gunners behind the lines. Those who failed to advance were shot from behind [You can see a great example of this in "Enemy at the Gates"].

[bezdomni]

Trotsky's two key works 'The Permanent Revolution' and 'The Transitional Programme' are indispensible for marxists seeking to apply the marxist programme to everyday sruggles and to analyse situations in the 3rd world.What, may I ask, is the "marxist programme to everyday struggle"? That statement reeks of trotskyite economism.


I wonder how many people were "Trotskyists" but moved on to anarchism or Stalinism in a few weeks before even reading what the Old Man had to say. Judging from this site, it would appear to be far too many.

Lots. Trotskyism is easy. People who see the necessity to defend the Russian Revolution but have little understanding of the actual ideas behind the revolution (the ideas of Marx and Lenin) become Trotskyists initially, because since they don't understand Marx and Lenin, they don't understand how Trotsky stands in stark contrast to their ideas. Their hearts are in the right place because they want to defend the Russian Revolution, but their brains are not ready to recognize that Stalin "continued the path" so to speak. I don't think Stalin's mistakes came from him abandoning the ideas and legacy of Lenin, but rather that Lenin himself was incorrect in much of methodology (as were Marx and Mao) and Stalin "merely" continued that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's the second time I've read you write "Trotskyite economism." :lol:

What next: Kautskyite economism? :laugh:

[P.S. - Your comment regarding "social proletocracy" should have been modified to "Kautskyite economism." ;) ]

[Crest]

As a Trotskyist, I believe my answer should be rather obvious.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He invaded anarchist ukraine and massacred the Anarchist army, dissolved the workers soviets and chased Makhno into western Europe.

You mean anarchist-controlled "soviets" and constituent assemblies and not the workers' socialist soviets in "Bolshevik Russia," don't you? :p

[Psy]

Lots. Trotskyism is easy. People who see the necessity to defend the Russian Revolution but have little understanding of the actual ideas behind the revolution (the ideas of Marx and Lenin) become Trotskyists initially, because since they don't understand Marx and Lenin, they don't understand how Trotsky stands in stark contrast to their ideas. Their hearts are in the right place because they want to defend the Russian Revolution, but their brains are not ready to recognize that Stalin "continued the path" so to speak. I don't think Stalin's mistakes came from him abandoning the ideas and legacy of Lenin, but rather that Lenin himself was incorrect in much of methodology (as were Marx and Mao) and Stalin "merely" continued that.
All Stalin did was rapidly industrialize Russia, any protectionist capitalist could have done that. Stalin alienated workers from production as much as they were in the west. Stalin filled the government with opportunists and spineless yes men causing the dysfunctional USSR that eventually collapsed due its own corruption.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't much to add, except my opinion. I view with great respect comrade Strotsky, but of course like any other human being he wasn't perfect, but never the less, I see him as a "good" comrade.

[AGITprop]

I don't much to add, except my opinion. I view with great respect comrade Strotsky...

Who?

:lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh:

Oh dear God I nearly died of laughter.
No offence to you comrade.

This should be stickied.

[BIG BROTHER]

Who?

:lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh:

Oh dear God I nearly died of laughter.
No offence to you comrade.

This should be stickied.

is it because i spelled it with an "s" at the begunnig or what?:confused:(my bad grammar is no secret:blushing:)

[Random Precision]

What, may I ask, is the "marxist programme to everyday struggle"? That statement reeks of trotskyite economism.

Read my signature line.


Lots. Trotskyism is easy. People who see the necessity to defend the Russian Revolution but have little understanding of the actual ideas behind the revolution (the ideas of Marx and Lenin) become Trotskyists initially, because since they don't understand Marx and Lenin, they don't understand how Trotsky stands in stark contrast to their ideas. Their hearts are in the right place because they want to defend the Russian Revolution, but their brains are not ready to recognize that Stalin "continued the path" so to speak. I don't think Stalin's mistakes came from him abandoning the ideas and legacy of Lenin, but rather that Lenin himself was incorrect in much of methodology (as were Marx and Mao) and Stalin "merely" continued that.

If you really understood Marx and Lenin, you would also understand how Trotsky was really the one who "continued the path".

But I do agree that Trotskyism is "easy", I myself started out as one but went through several bouts of anarchism before returning to the path, as it were.

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotskyism is "easy"? It's much more easier to follow the line; "Soviet Union/China was socialist so I like Soviet Union/China."

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Alas, I and a few comrades have to tackle the hard questions in trying to revive revolutionary Marxism since the deaths of Lenin, Luxemburg, and Connolly... :(

[Comrade Rage]

I voted negative. I honestly hate this man. There is literally no redeemable quality to this disgusting piece of sewage. The sight of him in a photograph makes me nauseaous, with the exception of him on dying on his hospital bed. I can't look at any other picture of this animal for more than five seconds without the urge to burn everything in sight.

Kudos to the person who removed this disgusting piece of filth from the planet earth. August 21, 1940 was the greatest date in history and I celebrate it annually.

I won't rest until every thing he wrote is either locked in the basement of the future socialist American capital, or burned. He truly is a cancer, and all of his 'literature' needs to be destroyed. Ideally every trace of this animal's past existence should be obliterated and he should be totally erased from history.

I dream of the day that this is accomplished.:):):):):)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I voted negative. I honestly hate this man. There is literally no redeemable quality to this disgusting piece of sewage. The sight of him in a photograph makes me nauseaous, with the exception of him on dying on his hospital bed. I can't look at any other picture of this animal for more than five seconds without the urge to burn everything in sight.

Kudos to the person who removed this disgusting piece of filth from the planet earth. August 21, 1940 was the greatest date in history and I celebrate it annually.

I won't rest until every thing he wrote is either locked in the basement of the future socialist American capital, or burned. He truly is a cancer, and all of his 'literature' needs to be destroyed. Ideally every trace of this animal's past existence should be obliterated and he should be totally erased from history.

I dream of the day that this is accomplished.:):):):):)

Don't hold back; tell us how you really feel about Trotsky. :)

[Comrade Rage]

Don't hold back; tell us how you really feel about Trotsky. :)
LOL I knew someone would say that!!:cool: The stunning thing is that I really was holding back.;)

[Lensky1917]

My overall view of Trotsky is a positive one. Trotsky was such an excellent Marxist, that even Lenin wanted him on his side. What more of an endorsement could he have?

Although he was partially responsible for the penal gulag rehabilitation facilities, he was not the one throwing people in them. Kronstadt was an unfortunate event, but had to be quelled. He saw the importance of world revolution, for one socialist nation would eventually become stagnant.

[Ramachandra]

I vote neutrel.Trotsky was a great revolutionery but his disagreements with the russian communist party and some of his theories seems to be dogmatic.But he is thousend times better than the so called troskyts who are here these days in our countries(sri lanka).They just talk about revolution but do nothing not even the tiniest thing to acheive it

[Comrade Rage]

But he is thousend times better than the so called troskyts who are here these days in our countries(sri lanka).They just talk about revolution but do nothing not even the tiniest thing to acheive itHow is that different from Trotsky post-1925?

[Lensky1917]

How is that different from Trotsky post-1925?


Considering that Stalin's acheivements came after the revolution, is that really any way to talk? :rolleyes:

[Comrade Rage]

Considering that Stalin's acheivements came after the revolution, is that really any way to talk? :rolleyes:
Actually, Stalin played a role equal to Trotsky in the revolution, he just wasn't a vain camera-whore like the Baron Bronstein.

[Lensky1917]

Actually, Stalin played a role equal to Trotsky in the revolution, he just wasn't a vain camera-whore


I'm sure that explains the marginalising of Trotsky's role in the revolution, and the inflation of Stalin's.:rolleyes: I am perfectly fine with you supporting Stalin, just don't drag other great revolutionary names through the mud.

[Andres Marcos]

Actually, Stalin played a role equal to Trotsky in the revolution, he just wasn't a vain camera-whore like the Baron Bronstein.

thats actually true.


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'.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img100.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img114.gif.
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.'
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img101.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img115.gif.
Robert H. McNeal, Stalin: Man and Ruler (New York: New York University Press, 1988), p. 63.

[Lensky1917]

Wow, two people sharing the same faction of communism taking sides? I'm shocked. :glare:

[Andres Marcos]

Wow, two people sharing the same faction of communism taking sides? I'm shocked. :glare:

Ahh sarcasm. Well if you are able to disprove the claims I made then by all means go ahead. Stalin was very well Trotsky's equal in the Civil War and recieved the same award Trotsky did. also I was not aware Crum dragged Trotsky's name in the mud by saying Stalin's achievements were viewed by the Bolsheviks as equaled to Trotsky's, unless no one could ever dare to be Trotsky's equal.

[Lensky1917]

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.'


So this is not an attack on Trotsky? :rolleyes:

As to the Order of the Red Banner; according to an objective biography of Leon Trotsky by Robert D. Warth, Joseph Stalin did not even attend the ceremony. Apparently, everybody was also "bewildered" that he had received it in the first place.

[Comrade Rage]

Wow, two people sharing the same faction of communism taking sides? I'm shocked. :glare:Of course you're shocked, because you're a Trot. If I was a member of a dying philosophy that schisms every ten minutes, I'd be a little shocked at seeing two people agree as well.:lol:

[Lensky1917]

Of course you're shocked, because you're a Trot.

I don't recall me mentioning that I am a Trotskyist. If I was a Trotskyist, I would not accept your support in Joseph Stalin.

[Andres Marcos]

So this is not an attack on Trotsky?


I ddnt write it, I was merely relaying what McNeal wrote. Also I dont think there is realistically any denying that Trotsky was objectively a vain fellow, lets look into his own writings:


"Among the Russian comrades, there was not one from whom I could learn anything…The errors which I have committed . . always referred to questions that were not fundamental or strategic. . . In all conscientiousness I cannot, in the appreciation of the political situation and of its revolutionary perspectives, accuse myself of any serious errors of judgement. Looking back, two years after the revolution, Lenin said:
‘At the moment when it seized the power and created the Soviet republic, Bolshevism drew to itself all the best elements in the currents of Socialist thought that were nearest to it’.
Can there be even a shadow of doubt that when he spoke so deliberately of the best representatives of the currents closest to Bolshevism, Lenin had foremost in mind what is now called 'historical Trotskyism'? . . Whom else could he have had in mind?"
(L. Trotsky: "My Life"; New York; 1970; p. 184, 185, 353).


and now Lenin


"Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky".
(V.I. Lenin: "Violation Of Unity under Cover Of Cries for Unity", in: "Selected Works", Volume 4; London; 1943; p. 194).


"What a swine this Trotsky is -- Left phrases and a bloc with the Right . . ! He ought to be exposed".
(V.I. Lenin: Letter to Alexandra Kollontai, February 17th., 1917, in: "Collected Works", Volume 35; Moscow; 1966; p. 285).



As to the Order of the Red Banner; according to an objective biography of Leon Trotsky by Robert D. Warth, Joseph Stalin did not even attend the ceremony. Apparently, everybody was also "bewildered" that he had received it in the first place.hmmm interesting, I guess their agreement to giving Trotsky and Stalin the Order of the Red banner was triumphant over their bewilderness since the Central Committee and Lenin awarded Stalin the award anyway.

[Lensky1917]

hmmm interesting, I guess their agreement to giving Trotsky and Stalin the Order of the Red banner was triumphant over their bewilderness since the Central Committee and Lenin awarded Stalin the award anyway.


What?

I actually believe that they gave Stalin the award in the interest of unity if anything.

[Comrade Rage]

What?

I actually believe that they gave Stalin the award in the interest of unity if anything.Geez Trot, stop grasping at straws.:rolleyes:

[Lensky1917]

Geez Trot, stop grasping at straws.


For the last time, I am not a Trotskyist. But you're sure as hell making me want to join them. You do not help your cause any by alienating people.


"Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky".
(V.I. Lenin: "Violation Of Unity under Cover Of Cries for Unity", in: "Selected Works", Volume 4; London; 1943; p. 194).


"What a swine this Trotsky is -- Left phrases and a bloc with the Right . . ! He ought to be exposed".
(V.I. Lenin: Letter to Alexandra Kollontai, February 17th., 1917, in: "Collected Works", Volume 35; Moscow; 1966; p. 285).

Lenin may have joked about Trotsky, but he had great respect for him. Lenin did everything he could to obtain Trotsky's services.

[Comrade Rage]

Sorry, but me and Comrade Marcos have provided you with truth and sources. Your argument has been "Well geez, the CCCP just gave Stalin an award for no reason. Must've felt like just giving 'em away."

If I was a Trotskyist, I would not accept your support in Joseph Stalin.You're not doing it now, for fuck's sake!

[Lensky1917]

Sorry, but me and Comrade Marcos have provided you with truth and sources. Your argument has been "Well geez, the CCCP just gave Stalin an award for no reason. Must've felt like just giving 'em away."


I believe that I provided a source, did I not? Plus, it seemed to me that Andre merely tried to twist my words around.


You're not doing it now, for fuck's sake!

Sure I am. I've seen many arguments from Trotskyists, and I seem to be doing a far more polite job. :)

[Comrade Rage]

I believe that I provided a source, did I not? Plus, it seemed to me that Andre merely tried to twist my words around.How, WTF?




Sure I am. I've seen many arguments from Trotskyists, and I seem to be doing a far more polite job. :)I'm not accusing you of trolling, I am accusing you of not listening to the facts.

[Lensky1917]

hmmm interesting, I guess their agreement to giving Trotsky and Stalin the Order of the Red banner was triumphant over their bewilderness since the Central Committee and Lenin awarded Stalin the award anyway.

Perhaps I misunderstood how he said this?


I'm not accusing you of trolling, I am accusing you of not listening to the facts.

I am merely extrapolating upon the material that I have read. The material that I have read, indicates that Stalin may not have deserved his revolutionary credentials. Although he did not do too badly for himself when he took power.

[Comrade Rage]

I am merely extrapolating upon the material that I have read. The material that I have read, indicates that Stalin may not have deserved his revolutionary credentials. Although he did not do too badly for himself when he took power.Well, no offense to you personally, but it sounds like you've been reading some pretty biased stuff.

Please read this:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[Lensky1917]

Well, no offense to you personally, but it sounds like you've been reading some pretty biased stuff.


It's hard to not find things that are biased. I think the author was of that particular Trotsky biography was as objective as a capitalist can be. Meaning...He hates Trotsky, but hates Stalin more. :lol:

Ironically, I bookmarked that link not long ago and haven't gotten around to reading it. :)

I still have book on the history of world communism, a biography of Joseph Stalin, a biography of Mao, and a biography of Che Guevara to read.

[Comrade Rage]

It's hard to not find things that are biased. I think the author was of that particular Trotsky biography was as objective as a capitalist can be. Meaning...He hates Trotsky, but hates Stalin more. :lol:
Yeah...that's pretty much the consensus among capitalist 'historians'.

Ironically, I bookmarked that link not long ago and haven't gotten around to reading it. :)

I still have book on the history of world communism, a biography of Joseph Stalin, a biography of Mao, and a biography of Che Guevara to read.Sounds like you've got a lot of reading to do.:ohmy:

[Andres Marcos]

hmmm interesting, I guess their agreement to giving Trotsky and Stalin the Order of the Red banner was triumphant over their bewilderness since the Central Committee and Lenin awarded Stalin the award anyway.


Actually I was trying to show the absurdity of the argument that Stalin being awarded the Order of the Red Banner ''bewildered'' the Bolshevik comrades (as well as challenging Trotsky's notion that Stalin was a ''third rate figure'')when Lenin and the other members of the Central Committee gave it to him, certainly they did not think he was a ''third rate figure'' during the Civil War.

[Lensky1917]

I am curious though; as to why you call yourselves Hoxhaists, when you seem to be such strong supporters of Joseph Stalin?

[Andres Marcos]

I am curious though; as to why you call yourselves Hoxhaists, when you seem to be such strong supporters of Joseph Stalin?

I am also a strong supporter of Marx/Engels as well as Lenin but people usually do not talk bad about them. Hoxha most of the left does not even know about, ill admit I did no even as my years as a Maoist until I started talking to Serpov and Raven and I find his expansion on Lenin's State and Revolution and never abandoning class struggle as very relevant to my nation. As for Stalin, I was always a supporter of him since my years as a Maoist, recently I renounced Mao(although some stuff he promoted are good like the abolishing of ranks, talking to the masses in simple no nonesense language, as well as simplifying education.).

[Lensky1917]

I am also a strong supporter of Marx/Engels as well as Lenin but people usually do not talk bad about them.


I hear people talking bad about them all the time. "Oh, Marx was a drunkard" or "Lenin is bad, he allowed Stalin to take power".


Hoxha most of the left does not even know about, ill admit I did no even as my years as a Maoist until I started talking to Serpov and Raven and I find his expansion on Lenin's State and Revolution and never abandoning class struggle as very relevant to my nation.

Really, where you from?

[Andres Marcos]

I hear people talking bad about them all the time. "Oh, Marx was a drunkard" or "Lenin is bad, he allowed Stalin to take power".


Well thats usually from the Right, I deal with those guys a lot mostly since im surrounded by em all the time. Missouri has plenty of rightwingers.(thats where im from)

[Lensky1917]

Missouri has plenty of rightwingers.(thats where im from)

Ah, you joined Soviet-Empire in January?

[Redmau5]

If I was a member of a dying philosophy that schisms every ten minutes, I'd be a little shocked at seeing two people agree as well.

I'm sorry, I found this hilarious. First of all, you're a Hoxhaist. I'm not sure if a few members on an internet forum plus another few tweebs dotted around the globe even manage to qualify as a "philosophy". Whatever problems there may be with Trotskyist organizations, they still manage to dwarf the pathetic sect that subscribes to "Hoxhaism".

And second, how the fuck do you become a member of a philosophy?


hmmm interesting, I guess their agreement to giving Trotsky and Stalin the Order of the Red banner was triumphant over their bewilderness since the Central Committee and Lenin awarded Stalin the award anyway.

Who the fuck cares what they were awarded, apart from people with USSR military fetishes? It should be the theory you should be concerned with, not some pointless award.


Well, no offense to you personally, but it sounds like you've been reading some pretty biased stuff.

Please read this:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html Today 22:12

Are you serious? You accuse him of reading "biased stuff" and then go and link to an article from a Stalinist organization? The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.:rolleyes:


I am curious though; as to why you call yourselves Hoxhaists, when you seem to be such strong supporters of Joseph Stalin?

Because Stalin is one of the most demonised figures in political history. So if you attach yourself to the "ideology" of an obscure Albanian dictator, ordinary working-class people may not be as repulsed in comparison to Stalin.

[Lensky1917]

Because Stalin is one of the most demonised figures in political history. So if you attach yourself to the "ideology" of an obscure Albanian dictator, ordinary working-class people may not be as repulsed in comparison to Stalin.


Wouldn't maintaining unity under a well-known leader be more intelligent than starting a new faction of communism, regardless of popular opinion on that particular leader?

[Andres Marcos]

I'm sorry, I found this hilarious. First of all, you're a Hoxhaist.


Oh I am sorry Mr. condescending Trotskite How many revolutions has the glorious Revolution Betrayed sect inspired?


I'm not sure if a few members on an internet forum plus another few tweebs dotted around the globe even manage to qualify as a "philosophy". Ohh im sure these parties and organizations were considered a few tweebs scattered across the globeInternational Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations (http://www.kpd-online.info/mlcon/index.htm)

Albanian Communist Party (http://www.pksh.org/) (Partia Komuniste Shqiptare, PKSH)
Revolutionary Communist Party (http://pcrbr.sites.uol.com.br/) (Partido Comunista Revolucionário, PCR), Brazil
Chilenian Communist Party (Proletarian Action) (http://www.accionproletaria.tk/) (Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria), PC(AP))
Communist Party of Colombia (marxist-leninist) (http://www.pcdec-ml.com/) (Partido Comunista de Colombia (marxista-leninista), PCdeC(ml))
Workers' Communist Party (http://www.apk2000.dk/) (Arbejderpartiet Kommunisterne), Denmark
Communist Labour Party (http://www.pct.gq.nu/) (Partido Comunista del Trabajo), Dominican Republic
Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (http://www.geocities.com/pcmle/) (Partido Comunista Marxista Leninista del Ecuador, PCMLE)
Democratic Popular Movement (http://bloquempd.tripod.com/index.html) (Movimiento Popular Democrático, MPD)
Communist Party of Germany [Red Morning] (http://www.kpd-online.info/) (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands [Roter Morgen], KPD)
Workers Communist Party of the France (http://www.pcof.net/) (Parti Communiste des Ouvriers de France, PCOF)
Movement for the Reorganization of the Communist Party of Greece (1918-55) (http://www.geocities.com/anasyntaxh/) (Kinisi gia Anasyntaxi tou Kommounistikou Kommatos Elladas (1918-55)), Greece
Labour Party of Iran (http://www.toufan.org/) (Hezb-e Kar-e Iran, Toufan)
Organization for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy (http://www.lanostralotta.net/) (Organizzazione per il Partito Comunista del Proletariato d'Italia)
Communist Party of Mexico (marxist-leninist) (http://www.pcmml.com/) (Partido Comunista de Mexico (marxista-leninista), PCM(M-L))
ML-group Revolution (http://www.revolusjon.no/) (ML-gruppa Revolusjon), Norway
State Committee of Communist Organizations (http://es.geocities.com/ceocweb/) (Coordinación Estatal de Organizaciones Comunistas, CEOC), Spain
Communist Collective 27 September (http://es.geocities.com/oc27s/) (Colectivo Comunista 27 de Septiembre, 27-S)
Communist Organization of the Valencian Country (http://www.ocpv.tk/) (Organización Comunista del País Valenciano / Organització Comunista del País Valencià, OCPV), Spain updated February 05
October Communist Organization (http://www.octubre.info/) (Organización Comunista "Octubre"), Spain
Communist Party of Tunisian Workers (http://www.albadil.org/) (Parti Communiste des Ouvriers Tunisiens / Hizb al-'Ummal al-Shuyu'i, PCOT)
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (http://www.tdkp.org/) (Türkiye Devrimci Komünist Partisi, TDKP),
Labourers Party (http://www.emep.org/) (Emegin Partisi, Emep), legal wing of TDKP
Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists [Red Morning] (http://cpgerml.50g.com/) (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands/Marxisten-Leninisten [Roter Morgen], KPD/ML)
Setup Organization of the New Workers Party, Marxists-Leninists (http://www.rodetribune.tk/) (Opbouworganisatie van de Nieuwe Arbeiderspartij - Marxisten Leninisten, NAP-ML (Opbouworganisatie), Netherlands



Who the fuck cares what they were awarded, apart from people with USSR military fetishes? It should be the theory you should be concerned with, not some pointless award.
Excellent, now I can bash on this pathetic ideology much easier since I am more knowledgable of his ideology if you want to call it that. Trotsky's piss pot theories(of socialism being impossible in a few countries, his skipping of economic stages etc. etc.) has been disproven many times over by the theories of Lenin yet you people never learn and yet still have ammased a following(until you start splitting over some petty little issue), but I wouldn't really call it that since there has been ZERO action from Trots since 1936.



Are you serious? You accuse him of reading "biased stuff" and then go and link to an article from a Stalinist organization? The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.
Ever heard of the difference between a book and an article? That was a book, and usually like a book it contains CITED sources.



Because Stalin is one of the most demonised figures in political history. So if you attach yourself to the "ideology" of an obscure Albanian dictator, ordinary working-class people may not be as repulsed in comparison to Stalin.Just because young Trotskyites like yourself have never heard of Hoxha or that he led a small country does not make him any less relevant, I would say that makes him more relevant since Trotskyite cults have not even had enough strength to take even a city. I also want to find which members of the working class are inspired by an ideology that isn't even fortunate enough to have even been tried ANYWHERE at least the anarchists have a tried and failed approach but Trots haven't even placed their theories in practice after nearly a half a century, the ideology doesn't even count as a scientific one, much more like a religion with Trots being typical of ''waiting'' for the revolution, and again despite being disproved on every one of Trotsky's theories still cling to it just like a religious person. Also I have NEVER met anyone who takes that pathetic approach you are talking about since I have defended Stalin more times in RL and on these forums than I have ever done on Hoxha. I would turn the tables on you, why is it that so many Trotskyidiots cling to every word Che Guevara said when Che Guevara was a ''Stalinist'' and during his career shot and killed Trotskites, I will say why because non-Marxist-Leninist che supporters are Lemmings just because some middle class kids wears his face on their shirts and likes Che also like Lemmings when the bourgeois and fascists go in on Stalin the Trots feel like they have to jump in as well.

[Andres Marcos]

Wouldn't maintaining unity under a well-known leader be more intelligent than starting a new faction of communism, regardless of popular opinion on that particular leader?

Well in my Party we are pretty lenient on allowing people in(even Maoists) we only ask that an individual at least upholds Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

Actually there is no difference between ''Stalinists'' and ''Hoxhaists'' in fact there is no difference between Leninists and Stalinists despite all the wailings of Trots. Marxist-Leninists have been saying that for years that there is little that Stalin added to Lenin's theory he did not even ''invent'' socialism in one country, it was an orthodox Marxist position since 1878 by Georg Vollmar in his work the Isolated Socialist state.

he argues ''the final victory of socialism in at first only one single state or several states is possible."

You can find an objective analysis of Stalin's roots of Marxism in the book: Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies in which there is an article by Prof. Erik Van Ree titled 'Stalin as Marxist'.

Lenin who the Trots claim to uphold also held this position:



“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of
capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several
or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat
of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its
own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world,
the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of
other countries ... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible
without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle by the socialist
republics against the backward states.” (Lenin. Collected Works. Vol. 21, p 342 Slogan
for a United States of Europe).

[Lensky1917]

Andres, you didn't answer my question as to you joining Spviet-Empire.


Actually there is no difference between ''Stalinists'' and ''Hoxhaists''

Than why create new factions?! :glare:

I don't believe that I really agree with the theory of having socialism in one state. Especially when it is utilised in under-developed countries. It should first take hold in an industrialised nation, and should continue in a "domino effect".

[bezdomni]

"Stalinism" isn't a political faction or ideology - it's a political swear word with no meaning attached to it made up by Trotskyists.

[AGITprop]

"Stalinism" isn't a political faction or ideology - it's a political swear word with no meaning attached to it made up by Trotskyists.

Trotskyist was a swear-word thought up first by Stalinists.

We're only reciprocating the favour.

[bezdomni]

Trotskyist was a swear-word thought up first by Stalinists.

We're only reciprocating the favour.

There is Marxism-Leninism and there is Trotskyism. The two are distinct ideologies with distinct histories. Trotskyists like to claim that they are the heirs of Leninism, so they try to distance actual Marxist-Leninists from their own ideology by calling them "Stalinists" - which is a word with no meaning.

Trotskyism, on the other hand, has distinctive ideological features such as a tendency towards economism and reformism, conception of the "deformed workers state", opposition to the position of Lenin and Stalin on the national question; and a distinctive history in that Trotsky opposed the joint dictatorship of the peasantry and proletariat, Trotsky was calling for extending War communism, and Trotsky was originally a menshevik while practically all of the other Old Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Stalin) were unflinching in their Bolshevism.

So...Trotskyism as a category makes sense, although it has degenerated and changed in crucial ways from the era of the Fourth International. For all intensive purposes, I wouldn't consider Grantites, Cliffites, Schatmanites etc to be real Trotskyists. The "orthodox Trotskyist" line, in my opinion, is articulated by groups like the Spartacist League (who are absolutely insane) in the U.S.

[Andres Marcos]

Andres, you didn't answer my question as to you joining Spviet-Empire.

Im sorry I ddnt see it, yes I joined SE, although I hardly go on any boards(I havent visited them in months) and the same with this one except I was informed Unicorn started slandering Slavyanski.




Than why create new factions?! :glare:
AND what new factions do you speak of? These ''Hoxhaist'' parties were formed in the 60s and were either mass emigration of Anti-Revisionists opposing the de-stalinization in the parties around the world or former Maoist parties that renounced Maoism.



I don't believe that I really agree with the theory of having socialism in one state. Especially when it is utilised in under-developed countries. It should first take hold in an industrialised nation, and should continue in a "domino effect".Dont you think thats a little too dogmatic? I mean Marx waffled on whether socialism should be an industrialized state first or not and settled on ''where the proletariat is at least in an important place in society"(see Stalin as Marxist by Erik Van Ree) Also I tend to agree its favorable on the industrialized state(although I will support Socialist revolution anywhere) part, since it would be easier economics wise(no need to industrialize) and the focus can be more focused on consumer goods rather than Heavy Industry as in these nations already have it, third more power can be given to the Worker's Councils(or Soviets) due to the fact that there will be a large number of technical proletariat(along with computers) who can assist in maintaining production levels. Marxism-Leninism needs to be adapted to suit the nations like in Western Europe, Japan, and America. Take for example in America, we have never had a peasantry(but a petty bourgeois farmer class) due to the lack of European style fuedalism, therefore Lenin and Stalin's position of allying with the peasantry in my nation will be outdated.

[AGITprop]

There is Marxism-Leninism and there is Trotskyism. The two are distinct ideologies with distinct histories. Trotskyists like to claim that they are the heirs of Leninism, so they try to distance actual Marxist-Leninists from their own ideology by calling them "Stalinists" - which is a word with no meaning.

Trotskyism, on the other hand, has distinctive ideological features such as a tendency towards economism and reformism, conception of the "deformed workers state", opposition to the position of Lenin and Stalin on the national question; and a distinctive history in that Trotsky opposed the joint dictatorship of the peasantry and proletariat, Trotsky was calling for extending War communism, and Trotsky was originally a menshevik while practically all of the other Old Bolsheviks (including Lenin and Stalin) were unflinching in their Bolshevism.

So...Trotskyism as a category makes sense, although it has degenerated and changed in crucial ways from the era of the Fourth International. For all intensive purposes, I wouldn't consider Grantites, Cliffites, Schatmanites etc to be real Trotskyists. The "orthodox Trotskyist" line, in my opinion, is articulated by groups like the Spartacist League (who are absolutely insane) in the U.S.

We were talking about the word.
You were just itching to put your 2 cents in about Trotskyism weren't you.

LoL at the Spartacist League.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is Marxism-Leninism and there is Trotskyism. The two are distinct ideologies with distinct histories. Trotskyists like to claim that they are the heirs of Leninism, so they try to distance actual Marxist-Leninists from their own ideology by calling them "Stalinists" - which is a word with no meaning.

No: there is small-r revolutionary Marxism, Trotskyism, "Marxism-Leninism," and Maoism. The four are distinct ideologies with distinct histories. It's quite telling that, while Lenin used the first term aptly to describe his positions and those of fellow small-r revolutionary Marxists like Luxemburg, all the Trotskyists, "Marxist-Leninists," and Maoists started using their own terms to justify their own distortions (a retrograde to ordinary Marxism that was and is prone to reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism).

[Vanguard1917]

Well in my Party we are pretty lenient on allowing people in(even Maoists) we only ask that an individual at least upholds Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

Actually there is no difference between ''Stalinists'' and ''Hoxhaists'' in fact there is no difference between Leninists and Stalinists despite all the wailings of Trots. Marxist-Leninists have been saying that for years that there is little that Stalin added to Lenin's theory he did not even ''invent'' socialism in one country, it was an orthodox Marxist position since 1878 by Georg Vollmar in his work the Isolated Socialist state.

he argues ''the final victory of socialism in at first only one single state or several states is possible."

You can find an objective analysis of Stalin's roots of Marxism in the book: Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies in which there is an article by Prof. Erik Van Ree titled 'Stalin as Marxist'.

Lenin who the Trots claim to uphold also held this position:

This is the quote in context:

'A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations iii socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

Lenin is saying that socialist revolution can take place in one country and spread to the rest of the world with the aid of that country. His perspective is definitely internationalist: 'After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.'

Lenin never thought that the aims of the working class could be fulfilled within the confines of one state. He knew full well that in order to progress beyond mere short-term survival the working class revolution had to spread to other countries:

'Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the ... task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.'

The experience of post-revolutionary Russia showed just how difficult it was to establish socialist production - i.e. workers' management of the economy - in an isolated workers' state. The isolated workers' state simply cannot compete with the efficiecy and productivity of capitalism and its international divisions of labour. This is why socialism can only succeed and become a progressive alternative to capitalism if it's established on an international scale. Like Lenin said in 1921: 'We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the revolution in Russia.' Hence the NEP and its introduction of market mechanisms.

[bezdomni]

We were talking about the word.
You were just itching to put your 2 cents in about Trotskyism weren't you.

LoL at the Spartacist League.

We were talking about the origins of the terms Trotskyism and Stalinism, and how Stalinism doesn't exist as a political faction or a specific ideology as Trotskyists like to pretend it is.

And yes, this is a thread about Trotsky after all...so I am going to share what I think about Trotsky, which, unfortunately for you, seems to contradict what you want to say about Trotsky.

I despise the spartacist league, but they are good Trotskyists.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

no the spartacist league is not good trotskyists they're just preserved in the 1930s. Trotsky had some very valid criticisms of the USSR and he heroicly led the Red Army. At the same time the trotskyist movement has done alot of damage to the communist movement at times just hightening sectarianism (not that marxist-leninists aren't also responsible).

[bezdomni]

no the spartacist league is not good trotskyists they're just preserved in the 1930s.

Trotskyism should have been preserved in the 1930s. That's why I like them.


Trotsky had some very valid criticisms of the USSR and he heroicly led the Red Army.
List his so-called "valid criticisms" of the USSR, and we'll see if that's true or not.

Generally speaking, Trotsky's criticisms of the USSR are idealist and unmarxist in nature. The entire concept of a "deformed workers state" is quite silly and has no precedent in Marxist theory. The Revolution Betrayed is a purely speculative work that fails to make any point other than Trotsky was ultimately an anti-communist hack.

[chegitz guevara]

If you comrades could stop slandering each other for a minute, you might realize how much more you have in common than you have as differences.

[Lensky1917]

I've been reading a rather anti-Stalin biography, but the book itself does illustrate Stalin's importance to the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky was great in a "conventional" sense, however it was Stalin who carried out many
"unconventional" methods.

[Axel1917]

I'm sure that explains the marginalising of Trotsky's role in the revolution, and the inflation of Stalin's.:rolleyes: I am perfectly fine with you supporting Stalin, just don't drag other great revolutionary names through the mud.

Ugh. Stalin was a total hack and ignoramus when it came to military manners. He was virtually unknown compared to Trotsky (see John Reed's Ten Days That Shook the World to prove my point, as Lenin considered this account accurate and wanted it published in many languages. The Stalinists banned this work, no surprise.).

Stalin favored two cronies (forgot their names) that said WWII would be fought with cavalry over the military genius, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who stated that WWII would be fought with tanks and planes. The Red Army also lost 27 million people due to Stalin purging the finest cadres of the Red Army, and his "Social Fascism" theory helping bring Hitler to power.

The hack even went further with falsified films, such as The Unforgettable 1919. In this hack film, Stalin is depicted as the leader of the Red Army and appears on the armored train. Stalin would watch this film in his private cinema and praise himself in the third person, saying things like "Stalin is so handsome!" and the like. Dimitri Shostakovich recalls this in his memoirs.

Stalinism has been exposed for all to see. It has collapsed and the bureaucrats became capitalists to further their privileges. Many of today's Stalinists (especially Maoists like Prachanda, who sounds more like a "Dengist," to use their terminology.) have become de facto pro-capitalists, as they support the two-stage "theory," which rejects socialist revolution and supports class collaborationism, in addition to subordinating the interests of the workers to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Trotsky's contributions to Marxism are tremendous. He made powerful analysis of Stalinism and Fascism, and defended Leninism against Stalinism until his death. He built a powerful army from scratch that defeated a much more powerful force of nearly two dozen armies of foreign intervention. His capabilities were immense, and with Lenin, he was a leader of the October Revolution.

No matter how hard they try, neither the bourgeoisie, the Stalinists, nor the sects can bury Trotskyism.


Oh I am sorry Mr. condescending Trotskite How many revolutions has the glorious Revolution Betrayed sect inspired?Eh, Trotskyism (Leninism) made the big revolution, the October Revolution.

How many revoutions have you guys betrayed, eliminating the gains of the revolution and restoring capitalism. All of them!


So...Trotskyism as a category makes sense, although it has degenerated and changed in crucial ways from the era of the Fourth International. For all intensive purposes, I wouldn't consider Grantites, Cliffites, Schatmanites etc to be real Trotskyists. The "orthodox Trotskyist" line, in my opinion, is articulated by groups like the Spartacist League (who are absolutely insane) in the U.S.

Er...sorry, but Trotsky did not moonwalk. So, you fail here! :P I don't consider Schactmanites or Cliffites to be Trotskyists, but the Micheal Jackson tendency are not Trotskyists either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Voroshilov and Budyonny (really surprised that the latter, the cavalry guy, didn't get shot - a rare case of personal cronyism on Stalin's part)

[Unicorn]

Generally speaking, Trotsky's criticisms of the USSR are idealist and unmarxist in nature. The entire concept of a "deformed workers state" is quite silly and has no precedent in Marxist theory. The Revolution Betrayed is a purely speculative work that fails to make any point other than Trotsky was ultimately an anti-communist hack.
At least Trotsky and orthodox Trotskyites supported defending the USSR against imperialist aggression unlike Mao after 1961.

[3A CCCP]

Many call him an opportunist and a counter revolutionary, and many follow his ideas. What do you think about trotsky?
I personaly think that Trotsky was an orthodox marxist, he was against bureaucrats and he was democratic. If Trotsky was not exiled maybe there would still be a Soviet Union nowdays.

Comrade:

Trotsky was one of the most vile traitors to the Great October Socialist Revolution that ever lived (probably, only one step below Gorbachev).

His legacy has created divisions and dissent in the Communist movement that, obviously, exist until today. While in exile he was worse than a whore and would jump into bed with anyone who opposed comrade Stalin and the CPSU. His ego overwhelmed any scruples he may have had (if he ever had any!).

Trotskyism is NOT Marxism-Leninism!

Trotsky's position was soundly rejected by the majority of the Party at the 13th Party Congress in 1924.

Trotsky's position was almost unanimously rejected by the 15th Party Congress in 1927 by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000.

Trotsky was the only major leader not present at comrade Lenin's funeral.

Trotsky was denounced by comrade Lenin.

Below are 10 articles by Dennis McKinsey (Klomckin) that cover (or uncover) Trotsky in depth. Take the time to read them and learn what Trotsky was about.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail


LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
[10 POSTINGS]
One need only read all 45 volumes of Lenin’s Collected Works as well as some of his other writings to see that he often criticized and vehemently denounced Trotsky. Those who seem to think Trotsky was the proper carrier of Lenin’s torch definitely need to read the following 10 postings in this regard.

But first we should note Lenin’s compliments of Stalin.

A few noteworthy instances are the following.
In a 1913 article in the Social Democrat entitled The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin stated,
“Why and how the national question has, at the present time, been bought to the fore...is shown in detail in the resolution itself. There is hardly any need to dwell on this in view of the clarity of the situation. This situation and the fundamentals of a national programme for Social-Democracy have recently been dealt with in Marxist theoretical literature (the most prominent place being taken by Stalin’s article.” He is referring to the writing by Stalin entitled Marxism and the National Question.


At the 11th Congress of the R.C.P. (B) in 1922 Lenin was more flattering toward Stalin when he said, “It is terribly difficult to do this; we lack the men! But Preobrazhensky comes along and airily says that Stalin has jobs in two Commissariats. Who among us has not sinned in this way? who has not undertaking several duties at once? And how can we do otherwise? What can we do to preserve the Nationalities; to handle all the Turkestan, Caucasian, and other questions? These are all political questions! They have to be settled. These are questions that have engaged the attention of European states for hundreds of years, and only an infinitesimal number of them have been settled in democratic republics. We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don’t think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin.
Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 33, page 315
In a February 1913 letter to Gorky Lenin said in regard to Stalin, “We have a marvellous Georgian who has sat down to write a big article for Prosveshcheniye, for which he has collected all the Austrian and other materials.”
Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 35, page 84.

************************************************** *************
NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE FIRST POST
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, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong. I have written out Comrade Trotsky’s correct propositions. They turn against him not only on the point in thesis 23 but on the others as well.
...Can it be denied that, even if Trotsky’s ‘new tasks and methods’ were as sound as they are in fact unsound, *his very approach would be damaging to himself, the Party, the trade union movement, the training of millions of trade union members and the Republic*?
...I decided there and then that policy lay at the root of the controversy, and that Comrade Trotsky, with his ‘shake-up’ policy against Comrade Tomsky, was entirely in the wrong.
...But ‘shake-up’ is a real ‘catchword’, not only in the sense that after being uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions it has, you might say, ‘caught on’ throughout the Party and the trade unions. Unfortunately, it remains true even today in the much more profound sense that it alone epitomizes the whole spirit, the whole trend of the platform pamphlet entitled The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Comrade Trotsky’s platform pamphlet is shot through with the spirit of the ‘shake-up-from-above’ policy.
...but after its publication we had to say: *Comrade Trotsky is essentially wrong on all his new points*.
This is most evident from a comparison of his theses with Rudzutak’s which were adopted.... They are fuller and more correct than Trotsky’s, and *wherever the latter differs from Rudzutak, he is wrong*.
...The fourth point is that ‘industrial democracy’ is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries.
...Trotsky’s ‘production atmosphere’ is even wider of the mark, and Zinoviev had good reason to laugh at it.... Comrade Trotsky’s ‘production atmosphere’ has essentially the same meaning as production propaganda, but such expressions must be avoided when production propaganda is addressed to the workers at large. The term is an example of how not to carry it on among the masses.
...Defence or camouflage of the political mistake expressed in the shake-up policy, which runs through the whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, and which, unless it is admitted and corrected, *leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat*.
...That is where Zinoviev and myself, on the one hand, and Trotsky and Bukharin, on the other, actually stand on this question of politics and economics.
I could not help smiling, therefore, when I read Comrade Trotsky’s objection in his speech.... Comrade Trotsky thought these words were ‘very much to the point.’ Actually, however, *they reveal a terrible confusion of ideas, a truly hopeless ‘ideological confusion*.’
...Comrade Trotsky’s political mistakes, aggravated by Comrade Bukharin, distract our Party’s attention from economic tasks and ‘production’ work, and, unfortunately, make us waste time on correcting them and arguing it out with the syndicalist deviation (which leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat), objecting to the incorrect approach to the trade union movement (which leads to the collapse of the Soviet power), and debating general ‘theses’ instead of having a practical and business-like ‘economic’ discussion....
Once again we find political mistakes distracting attention from economic tasks. I was against this ‘broad’ discussion, and I believed, and still do, that it was a mistake--a political mistake--on Comrade Trotsky’s part to disrupt the work of the trade union commission, which ought to have held a business-like discussion.
*For Trotsky has made the Party waste time on a discussion of words and bad theses*....
We who are breaking new ground must put in a long, persistent and patient effort to retrain men and change the old habits which have come down to us from capitalism, but this can only be done little by little. *Trotsky’s approach is quite wrong*. In his December 30th speech he exclaimed: ‘Do or do not our workers, Party and trade union functionaries have any production training? Yes or no? I say: No. This is a ridiculous approach. It is like asking whether a division has enough felt boots: Yes or no?
It is safe to say that even ten years from now we shall have to admit that all our Party and trade union functionaries do not have enough production training....
...And it is this rule that Comrade Trotsky has broken by his theses and approach. *All his theses, his entire platform pamphlet, are so wrong that they have diverted the Party’s attention and resources from practical ‘production’ work to a lot of empty talk*.
...Trotsky’s mistake is ‘insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea’;....
...Whether you take it in the form it assumed at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, or as it was presented and slanted by Trotsky himself in his platform pamphlet of December 25th, you will find that his whole approach is quite wrong and that he has gone off at a tangent. He has failed to understand that the trade unions can and must be viewed as a school both when raising the question of ‘Soviet trade-unionism,’ and when speaking of production propaganda in general.... On this last point, as it is presented in Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, the mistake lies in his failure to grasp that the trade unions are a school of technical and administrative management of production. ...the trade unions, whichever way you look at them, are a school. They are a school of unity, solidarity, management and administration, where you learn how to protect your interests. Instead of making an effort to comprehend and correct *Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake*, Comrade Bukharin has produced a funny little amendment.
...let me say that Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake is that he treats (rather maltreats) the questions he himself had brought up in his platform pamphlet as administrative ones, whereas they could be and ought to be viewed only from the administrative angle....
The state is a sphere of coercion. *It would be madness to renounce coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat*.... The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules directly. *It is not coercion but expulsion from the Party that is the specific means of influence and the means of purging and steeling the vanguard.* The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a school of communism and a school of management. The specific and cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the ‘ties’ ‘between the central state administration,’ ‘the national economy and the broad masses of the working people.
The whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet betrays an incorrect approach to the problem and a misunderstanding of this relationship.
This is essentially a political question. Because of the substance of the case--this concrete, particular ‘case’--*it is impossible to correct Trotsky’s mistake by means of eclectic little amendments and addenda*, as Bukharin has been trying to do, being moved undoubtedly by the most humane sentiments and intentions.
*Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political mistakes in approach*, breaks in the middle of the transmission belts, and unwarranted and futile attacks on ‘administrative steerage.’ It is now clear where the ‘theoretical source of the mistake lies, since Bukharin has taken up that aspect of it with his example of the tumbler. His theoretical mistake lies in his substitution of eclecticism for dialectics. His eclectic approach has confused him and has landed him in syndicalism. **Trotsky’s mistake is one-track thinking, compulsiveness, exaggeration and obstinacy**.
...Incidentally, Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that ‘over the last period we have not made any headway towards the goal set forth in the Programme but have in fact retreated from it.’ That statement is unsupported, and, I think, wrong.
...And Trotsky has no one but himself to blame for having come out--after the November Plenary Meeting, which gave a clear-cut and theoretically correct solution--with a factional pamphlet on ‘the two trends’ and proposed a formulation in his thesis 41 which is wrong in economic terms.
Today, January 25, it is exactly one month since Comrade Trotsky’s factional statement. It is now patent that this pronouncement, inappropriate in form and wrong in essence, has diverted the Party from its practical economic and production effort into rectifying political and theoretical mistakes. But it’s an ill wind, as the old saying goes.
In this one month, Petrograd, Moscow and a number of provincial towns have shown that the Party responded to the discussion and *has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s wrong line by an overwhelming majority*. While there may have been some vacillation ‘at the top’ and ‘in the provinces’, in the committees and in the offices, the rank-and-file membership--*the mass of Party workers--came out solidly against this wrong line*.
...In any case, his January 23 announcement shows that the Party, without so much as mustering all its forces, and with only Petrograd, Moscow and a minority of the provincial towns going on record, has *corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake promptly and with determination*.
The Party’s enemies had rejoiced too soon. They have not been able--and will never be able--to take advantage of some of the inevitable disagreements within the Party to inflict harm on it and on the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.
In a January 1921 article entitled The Party Crisis Lenin states,
“The Central Committee sets up a trade union commission and elects Comrade Trotsky to it. He refuses to work on the commission, magnifying by this step alone his original mistake, which subsequently leads to factionalism....”


************************************************** ************* LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #10
THIS POST IS OUR FINAL REVELATION OF LENIN’S CRITICISMS OF TROTSKY
During a 1921 “Speech on the Trade Unions” Lenin stated,
“Comrade Trotsky now laughs at my asking who started it all, and is surprised that I should reproach him for refusing to serve on the commission. I did it because this is very important Comrade Trotsky, very important, indeed; your refusal to serve on the trade union commission was *a violation of Central Committee discipline*.”
In a 1922 article entitled “Reply to Remarks Concerning the Functions of the Deputy Chairmen of the Council of People’s Commisars” Lenin said,
“Some of Trotsky’s remarks are likewise vague (for example, the ‘apprehensions’ in paragraph 4) and do not require an answer; other remarks made by him renew old disagreements, that we have repeatedly observed in the Political Bureau....
As regards the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, *Comrade Trotsky is fundamentally wrong*....
As regards the State Planning Commission, *Comrade Trotsky is not only absolutely wrong but is judging something on which he is amazingly ill-informed*.
...The second paper from Comrade Trotsky...contains, first, an extremely excited but profoundly erroneous ‘criticism’ of the Political Bureau decree on setting up a financial triumvirate....
Secondly, this paper flings the same fundamentally wrong and intrinsically untrue accusations of academic method at the State Planning Commission, accusations which lead up to *the next incredibly uninformed statement by Comrade Trotsky*....”
In a letter to Lyubimov written in 1909 Lenin stated,
“As regards Trotsky, I must say that I shall be most vigorously opposed to helping him if he rejects (and he has already rejected it!) equality on the editorial board, proposed to him by a member of the C.C. Without a settlement of this question by the Executive Committee on the Bolshevik Centre, no steps to help Trotsky are permissible.”
In a letter to Alexandra Kollontai written in 1917 Lenin really blasted Trotsky by saying,
“Pleasant as it was to learn from you of the victory of N.Iv. and Pavlov in Novy Mir (I get this newspaper devilishly irregularly;...it was just as sad to read about the bloc between Trotsky and the Right for the struggle against N. Iv. *What a swine this Trotsky is*--Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to the Social-Democrat!”
In another Letter to Kollontai written after August 1915 Lenin stated,
“Roland-Holst, like Rakovsky...like Trotsky, in my opinion, are all the most harmful ‘Kautskians,’ in the sense that all of them in various forms are for unity with the opportunists, all in various forms *embellish* opportunism, all of them (in various way) preach eclecticism instead of revolutionary Marxism.”
In an equally powerful letter to Inessa Armand written about the same time Lenin states,
“...Trotsky arrived, and *this scoundrel* at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldist! That’s it!! *That’s Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself==twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can*....”
In a 1911 article entitled “The State of Affairs of the Party” Lenin stated,
What is the attitude of the other factions abroad? Trotsky, of course, is solidly behind the liquidators....
There are Party people, and liquidators who have broken away and set up a separate group. Groups abroad, like those of Golos, Trotsky, the Bund, and Vperyod, want to cover up the break-away of the liquidators, help them to hide under the banner of the R.S.D.L.P., and help them to thwart the rebuilding of the R.S.D.L.P. It is our task at all costs to rebuff the liquidators and, despite their opposition, recreate the R.S.D.L.P....
The ‘conciliators’ put their trust in Trotsky, who has clearly executed a full turn towards the liquidators....
We Bolsheviks have resolved on no account to repeat the error of conciliationism today. This would mean slowing down the rebuilding of the R.S.D.S.P, and entangling it in a new game with the Golos people (or *their lackeys, like Trotsky*), the Vperyodists and so forth.”
In 1911 Lenin stated in an article,
“We know that there are people who, while recognizing the need to fight the liquidators, object to a complete break with them and continue (even now!) to speak of ‘conciliation’ or ‘agreement’. Among these people are not only *the ‘loyal servitors’ of Trotsky, whom very few people now take seriously*.”
In a 1912 “Report on the Work of the International Socialist Bureau” Lenin stated,
“I was no longer about able to talk to the Golos people and looked at Trotsky with disapproval, especially over the letter.”
In a 1915 letter to Herman Gorter Lenin stated,
“I congratulate you on your splendid attacks on opportunism and Kautsky. Trotsky’s principal mistake is that he does not attack this gang.”
In a letter to Kamenev Lenin stated,
“What is the purpose of our policy now, at this precise moment? To build the Party core not on *the cheap phrases of Trotsky and Co.* but on genuine ideological rapprochement between the Plekhanovites and the Bolsheviks.”
In a March 1916 letter to Henriette Roland-Holst Lenin commented,
“What are our differences with Trotsky? This must probably interest you. *In brief--he is a Kautskyite*, that is, he stands for unity with the Kautskyites in the International and with Chkheidze’s parliamentary group in Russia. We are absolutely against such unity.... Trotsky at present is against the Organizing Committee (Axelrod and Martov) but for unity with the Chkheidze Duma group!!
We are decidedly against.”
In a 1909 Letter to Zinoview Lenin stated,
“As regards Pravda, have you read Trotsky’s letter to Inok? If you have, I hope it has convinced you that Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-Co. type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the CC and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the who rascally crew of Pravda at our expense!)--or break with this swindler and and exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.
In a 1916 letter to Zinoviev Lenin said,
“We had better deal with Trotsky in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata; he has to be dealt with at greater length.”
In another letter to Zinoviev in the same year Lenin stated,
“...It’s ghastly. I don’t know what to do. Yet something has still to be written about opportunism (I have 1/2 of it ready), about defeatism, and about Trotskyism (including the Duma group + P. S. D.).
In a March 1916 article entitled The Peace Programme Lenin stated,
“What about Trotsky? He is body and soul for self-determination, but in his case, too, it is an empty phrase, for he does not demand freedom of secession for nations oppressed by the ‘fatherland’ of the socialist of the given nationality; he is silent about the hypocrisy of Kautsky and his followers.’
In a July 1916 article entitled The Discussion on Self-determination Summed Up Lenin stated,
“No matter what the subjective ‘good’ intentions of Trotsky and Martov may be, teir evasiveness objectively supports Russian social-imperialism.”
In a report to the 7th Congress of the R.C.P. (B.) Lenin stated,
“What I predicted has come to pass; instead of the Brest peace we have a much more humiliating peace, and the blame for this rests upon those [e.g. Trotsky] who refused to accept the former peace.”




COMMENTS BY TROTSKY ABOUT LENIN
And we must certainly not forget the following opinions of Lenin expressed by Trotsky in a 1913 Letter to Chkeidze in which he stated,
“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT LADIES AND GENTLEMAN; SPELLED OUT BY 10 POSTS IN ALL ITS GORY DETAIL.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY WAS THE ONLY MAJOR LEADER NOT AT LENIN’S FUNERAL.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY WAS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION OF GENERAL SECRETARY
OF THE PARTY.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY’S PROGRAM WAS SOLIDLY AND ROUNDLY REJECTED AT THE 13TH PARTY CONGRESS IN
1924 AND THE 15TH PARTY CONGRESS IN 1927, THE LATER BY A VOTE OF 740,000 T0 4,000.
AND ABOVE ALL, NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKYISM IS NOT MARXISM-LENINISM.

[Comrade Krell]

"Trotskyism is the prostitute of fascism" - Antonio Gramsci

[Red Equation]

Neutral, don't know enough about the guy...

[3A CCCP]

Neutral, don't know enough about the guy...

Comrade:

If you read post #101 you will know alot about him. It's long, but worth the read if you're really interested.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Sorry but 3A CCCP you are wrong.

It is idealism and conspiracy theory to suggest that Trotsky had anything to do with dismantling the soviet union!

It was in 1990 when the soviet workers failed to defend the USSR! indeed they even voted for the most capitalist candidate when given the chance too!


And Trotsky's books were banned material! oh well.

Lenin and Trotsky disagreed with each other? shock! yes! That is because they were both men of principle, and said what they though was true.

Trotsky had a backbone and willingly stood against Lenin (which really isnt blasphemy even though you deify him) when he though lenin or anyone else was wrong.

It really comes as no surprise to those people that dont deny the existence of the gulags, who don't deny the murder of political prisoners, or the show trials and doctored photographs. The state sponsored deification of Lenin and stalin, the actual dominance of party over class, the undemocratic nature that the party ended up in, bastardisation of soviet democracy etc etc.

I know you do worship Lenin and Stalin, and i know you are unable to think in a materialist way and that you HAVE to deny the atrocities committed by stalinism, but what you must accept is that ONE MAN CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH MASSIVE DAMAGE TO AN IDEOLOGY AND SOCIETY THAT IT LEADS TO ITS DOWNFALL 50 YEARS AFTER HIS MURDER?

nobody can be that moronic, surely?

ask yourself why none of the millions of soviet workers defended the USSR and then voted for the most capitalist candidate!

[3A CCCP]

bloody_capitalist_sham wrote:
Sorry but 3A CCCP you are wrong.
It is idealism and conspiracy theory to suggest that Trotsky had anything to do with dismantling the soviet union!
I know you do worship Lenin and Stalin, and i know you are unable to think in a materialist way and that you HAVE to deny the atrocities committed by stalinism, but what you must accept is that ONE MAN CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH MASSIVE DAMAGE TO AN IDEOLOGY AND SOCIETY THAT IT LEADS TO ITS DOWNFALL 50 YEARS AFTER HIS MURDER?
nobody can be that moronic, surely?

My reply:
It seems that in a typical Trotskyite fashion you are twisting my words around. I never said that Trotsky was responsible for dismantling the Soviet Union. I said that his legacy is responsible for causing dissent and division in the Communist movement. Perhaps, I should have added "worldwide" Communist movement since he had little support in the CPSU in 1923 and even less in 1927. Trotsky was too impotent and devoid of backing in his own country to have been responsible for the downfall of the USSR, especially 50 years after his death.

The revisionist path that opened the door to the disintegration of the USSR by the capitalist policies of Mikhail Gorbachev was blazed by Nikita Khrushchev. The process was slow, but it allowed a Gorbachev to finally get a foothold and destroy the system from within.

bloody_capitalist_sham wrote:
It was in 1990 when the soviet workers failed to defend the USSR! indeed they even voted for the most capitalist candidate when given the chance too!
ask yourself why none of the millions of soviet workers defended the USSR and then voted for the most capitalist candidate

My reply:
From 1985 to 1991 "Perestroika" dismantled the Socialist system in the USSR while its propaganda arm, "Glasnost," worked on mentally propagandizing the workers to "bite the hand that fed them" (i.e. Socialism). It was a slick operation that most of us who were caught in the middle realized what was happening when it was too late.

By the time the GKChP was formed it was too late and all over but the shouting. The end result was the unholy trinity (Yeltsin/Kravchuk/Shushkevich) illegally dissolved the USSR and remained as the presidents of their respective republics (Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia). Gorbachev had no place to go as President of the then non-existent Soviet Union.

As far as the workers voting for "the most capitalist candidate," this is a crock. When Yeltsin finally allowed an election to be held he nearly lost. Even with his government controlling the election and stuffing the ballot box Communist candidate Zyuganov lost by 51% to 49% of the vote.

I assume you didn't live in the Soviet Union and post Soviet Russian Federation. If you did you would be aware of the demonstrations and bloody street battles that rocked the country. I can't criticize you on this, since the U.S. media did not report on what was really going on in the country. Showing even one battle initiated by Anpilov would have been too shocking for the American TV viewers who had to be kept in a mindless state and believing the Russian people were against Communism and for the drunken buffoon and puppet of Washington.

bloody_capitalist_sham wrote:
It really comes as no surprise to those people that dont deny the existence of the gulags, who don't deny the murder of political prisoners, or the show trials and doctored photographs. The state sponsored deification of Lenin and stalin, the actual dominance of party over class, the undemocratic nature that the party ended up in, bastardisation of soviet democracy etc etc.

My reply:
This is alot of hot air with no evidence except for the rantings of W.R. Hearst and Robert Conquest whom Trots seem to love to quote.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Oh so the workers in the USSR allowed the USSR to be dismantled because they had been "mentally propagandised" into it!

That is completely against materialist philosophy.

Why did the soviet workers even allow the perestroika and glasnost to happen, surely they would have been able to direct state policy away from that!

But, when the time came, they just didn't.

For the first time in their lives, they were given the chance to VOTE for multiple candidates, and the most pro capitalist candidate WON!

They chose capitalism over socialism, this is especially bizzare as they were supposed to be the ruling class in socialism, but then voted into power the group which was to re institute capitalism to Russia.


It isn't possible to brainwash millions of soviet workers in order to get them to vote for the end of socialism.

Reality shows that when given the choice, soviet people chose to end the socialist system.

The berlin wall came down, and east and west germans celebrated, when the polish toppled the soviet dictators via the trade unions, the polish workers were happy.

The referendums that took place, in no way showed a clear support for the continuation of socialism. The republics wanted to succeed and actively pursued its end!

Basically, when the proletariat were given the chance to vote, they voted against you! and the system you call socialism or communism. Sorry, but its true.

and your denial of the mass labour camps where hundreds of thousands if not millions died is totally disgusting, but i understand you need to, just as apologists for Hitler, deny holocausts!

[Colonello Buendia]

the thing about Trotsky's position being in the minority is true. but why was it the case? It's a well documented fact that after Trotsky's departure Stalin removed many pro trotsky members of the party and only let pro stalin members join. no wonder the true leninist view was outvoted.

and also, Lenin was an internationalist he disagreed with the whole socialism in one country bollocks, if you can call it socialism that is.

[Unicorn]

Put two Trotskyists together and you get three factions.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Comrade:

Trotsky was one of the most vile traitors to the Great October Socialist Revolution that ever lived (probably, only one step below Gorbachev).

His legacy has created divisions and dissent in the Communist movement that, obviously, exist until today. While in exile he was worse than a whore and would jump into bed with anyone who opposed comrade Stalin and the CPSU. His ego overwhelmed any scruples he may have had (if he ever had any!).

Trotskyism is NOT Marxism-Leninism!

Trotsky's position was soundly rejected by the majority of the Party at the 13th Party Congress in 1924.

Trotsky's position was almost unanimously rejected by the 15th Party Congress in 1927 by a vote of 740,000 to 4,000.

Trotsky was the only major leader not present at comrade Lenin's funeral.

Trotsky was denounced by comrade Lenin.

Below are 10 articles by Dennis McKinsey (Klomckin) that cover (or uncover) Trotsky in depth. Take the time to read them and learn what Trotsky was about.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail


LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
[10 POSTINGS]
One need only read all 45 volumes of Lenin’s Collected Works as well as some of his other writings to see that he often criticized and vehemently denounced Trotsky. Those who seem to think Trotsky was the proper carrier of Lenin’s torch definitely need to read the following 10 postings in this regard.

But first we should note Lenin’s compliments of Stalin.

A few noteworthy instances are the following.
In a 1913 article in the Social Democrat entitled The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin stated,
“Why and how the national question has, at the present time, been bought to the fore...is shown in detail in the resolution itself. There is hardly any need to dwell on this in view of the clarity of the situation. This situation and the fundamentals of a national programme for Social-Democracy have recently been dealt with in Marxist theoretical literature (the most prominent place being taken by Stalin’s article.” He is referring to the writing by Stalin entitled Marxism and the National Question.


At the 11th Congress of the R.C.P. (B) in 1922 Lenin was more flattering toward Stalin when he said, “It is terribly difficult to do this; we lack the men! But Preobrazhensky comes along and airily says that Stalin has jobs in two Commissariats. Who among us has not sinned in this way? who has not undertaking several duties at once? And how can we do otherwise? What can we do to preserve the Nationalities; to handle all the Turkestan, Caucasian, and other questions? These are all political questions! They have to be settled. These are questions that have engaged the attention of European states for hundreds of years, and only an infinitesimal number of them have been settled in democratic republics. We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don’t think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin.
Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 33, page 315
In a February 1913 letter to Gorky Lenin said in regard to Stalin, “We have a marvellous Georgian who has sat down to write a big article for Prosveshcheniye, for which he has collected all the Austrian and other materials.”
Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 35, page 84.

************************************************** *************
NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE FIRST POST
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, what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong. I have written out Comrade Trotsky’s correct propositions. They turn against him not only on the point in thesis 23 but on the others as well.
...Can it be denied that, even if Trotsky’s ‘new tasks and methods’ were as sound as they are in fact unsound, *his very approach would be damaging to himself, the Party, the trade union movement, the training of millions of trade union members and the Republic*?
...I decided there and then that policy lay at the root of the controversy, and that Comrade Trotsky, with his ‘shake-up’ policy against Comrade Tomsky, was entirely in the wrong.
...But ‘shake-up’ is a real ‘catchword’, not only in the sense that after being uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions it has, you might say, ‘caught on’ throughout the Party and the trade unions. Unfortunately, it remains true even today in the much more profound sense that it alone epitomizes the whole spirit, the whole trend of the platform pamphlet entitled The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Comrade Trotsky’s platform pamphlet is shot through with the spirit of the ‘shake-up-from-above’ policy.
...but after its publication we had to say: *Comrade Trotsky is essentially wrong on all his new points*.
This is most evident from a comparison of his theses with Rudzutak’s which were adopted.... They are fuller and more correct than Trotsky’s, and *wherever the latter differs from Rudzutak, he is wrong*.
...The fourth point is that ‘industrial democracy’ is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries.
...Trotsky’s ‘production atmosphere’ is even wider of the mark, and Zinoviev had good reason to laugh at it.... Comrade Trotsky’s ‘production atmosphere’ has essentially the same meaning as production propaganda, but such expressions must be avoided when production propaganda is addressed to the workers at large. The term is an example of how not to carry it on among the masses.
...Defence or camouflage of the political mistake expressed in the shake-up policy, which runs through the whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, and which, unless it is admitted and corrected, *leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat*.
...That is where Zinoviev and myself, on the one hand, and Trotsky and Bukharin, on the other, actually stand on this question of politics and economics.
I could not help smiling, therefore, when I read Comrade Trotsky’s objection in his speech.... Comrade Trotsky thought these words were ‘very much to the point.’ Actually, however, *they reveal a terrible confusion of ideas, a truly hopeless ‘ideological confusion*.’
...Comrade Trotsky’s political mistakes, aggravated by Comrade Bukharin, distract our Party’s attention from economic tasks and ‘production’ work, and, unfortunately, make us waste time on correcting them and arguing it out with the syndicalist deviation (which leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat), objecting to the incorrect approach to the trade union movement (which leads to the collapse of the Soviet power), and debating general ‘theses’ instead of having a practical and business-like ‘economic’ discussion....
Once again we find political mistakes distracting attention from economic tasks. I was against this ‘broad’ discussion, and I believed, and still do, that it was a mistake--a political mistake--on Comrade Trotsky’s part to disrupt the work of the trade union commission, which ought to have held a business-like discussion.
*For Trotsky has made the Party waste time on a discussion of words and bad theses*....
We who are breaking new ground must put in a long, persistent and patient effort to retrain men and change the old habits which have come down to us from capitalism, but this can only be done little by little. *Trotsky’s approach is quite wrong*. In his December 30th speech he exclaimed: ‘Do or do not our workers, Party and trade union functionaries have any production training? Yes or no? I say: No. This is a ridiculous approach. It is like asking whether a division has enough felt boots: Yes or no?
It is safe to say that even ten years from now we shall have to admit that all our Party and trade union functionaries do not have enough production training....
...And it is this rule that Comrade Trotsky has broken by his theses and approach. *All his theses, his entire platform pamphlet, are so wrong that they have diverted the Party’s attention and resources from practical ‘production’ work to a lot of empty talk*.
...Trotsky’s mistake is ‘insufficient support for the school-of-communism idea’;....
...Whether you take it in the form it assumed at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, or as it was presented and slanted by Trotsky himself in his platform pamphlet of December 25th, you will find that his whole approach is quite wrong and that he has gone off at a tangent. He has failed to understand that the trade unions can and must be viewed as a school both when raising the question of ‘Soviet trade-unionism,’ and when speaking of production propaganda in general.... On this last point, as it is presented in Trotsky’s platform pamphlet, the mistake lies in his failure to grasp that the trade unions are a school of technical and administrative management of production. ...the trade unions, whichever way you look at them, are a school. They are a school of unity, solidarity, management and administration, where you learn how to protect your interests. Instead of making an effort to comprehend and correct *Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake*, Comrade Bukharin has produced a funny little amendment.
...let me say that Comrade Trotsky’s fundamental mistake is that he treats (rather maltreats) the questions he himself had brought up in his platform pamphlet as administrative ones, whereas they could be and ought to be viewed only from the administrative angle....
The state is a sphere of coercion. *It would be madness to renounce coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat*.... The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules directly. *It is not coercion but expulsion from the Party that is the specific means of influence and the means of purging and steeling the vanguard.* The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a school of communism and a school of management. The specific and cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the ‘ties’ ‘between the central state administration,’ ‘the national economy and the broad masses of the working people.
The whole of Trotsky’s platform pamphlet betrays an incorrect approach to the problem and a misunderstanding of this relationship.
This is essentially a political question. Because of the substance of the case--this concrete, particular ‘case’--*it is impossible to correct Trotsky’s mistake by means of eclectic little amendments and addenda*, as Bukharin has been trying to do, being moved undoubtedly by the most humane sentiments and intentions.
*Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political mistakes in approach*, breaks in the middle of the transmission belts, and unwarranted and futile attacks on ‘administrative steerage.’ It is now clear where the ‘theoretical source of the mistake lies, since Bukharin has taken up that aspect of it with his example of the tumbler. His theoretical mistake lies in his substitution of eclecticism for dialectics. His eclectic approach has confused him and has landed him in syndicalism. **Trotsky’s mistake is one-track thinking, compulsiveness, exaggeration and obstinacy**.
...Incidentally, Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that ‘over the last period we have not made any headway towards the goal set forth in the Programme but have in fact retreated from it.’ That statement is unsupported, and, I think, wrong.
...And Trotsky has no one but himself to blame for having come out--after the November Plenary Meeting, which gave a clear-cut and theoretically correct solution--with a factional pamphlet on ‘the two trends’ and proposed a formulation in his thesis 41 which is wrong in economic terms.
Today, January 25, it is exactly one month since Comrade Trotsky’s factional statement. It is now patent that this pronouncement, inappropriate in form and wrong in essence, has diverted the Party from its practical economic and production effort into rectifying political and theoretical mistakes. But it’s an ill wind, as the old saying goes.
In this one month, Petrograd, Moscow and a number of provincial towns have shown that the Party responded to the discussion and *has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s wrong line by an overwhelming majority*. While there may have been some vacillation ‘at the top’ and ‘in the provinces’, in the committees and in the offices, the rank-and-file membership--*the mass of Party workers--came out solidly against this wrong line*.
...In any case, his January 23 announcement shows that the Party, without so much as mustering all its forces, and with only Petrograd, Moscow and a minority of the provincial towns going on record, has *corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake promptly and with determination*.
The Party’s enemies had rejoiced too soon. They have not been able--and will never be able--to take advantage of some of the inevitable disagreements within the Party to inflict harm on it and on the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.
In a January 1921 article entitled The Party Crisis Lenin states,
“The Central Committee sets up a trade union commission and elects Comrade Trotsky to it. He refuses to work on the commission, magnifying by this step alone his original mistake, which subsequently leads to factionalism....”


************************************************** ************* LENIN DENOUNCES TROTSKY
POST #10
THIS POST IS OUR FINAL REVELATION OF LENIN’S CRITICISMS OF TROTSKY
During a 1921 “Speech on the Trade Unions” Lenin stated,
“Comrade Trotsky now laughs at my asking who started it all, and is surprised that I should reproach him for refusing to serve on the commission. I did it because this is very important Comrade Trotsky, very important, indeed; your refusal to serve on the trade union commission was *a violation of Central Committee discipline*.”
In a 1922 article entitled “Reply to Remarks Concerning the Functions of the Deputy Chairmen of the Council of People’s Commisars” Lenin said,
“Some of Trotsky’s remarks are likewise vague (for example, the ‘apprehensions’ in paragraph 4) and do not require an answer; other remarks made by him renew old disagreements, that we have repeatedly observed in the Political Bureau....
As regards the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, *Comrade Trotsky is fundamentally wrong*....
As regards the State Planning Commission, *Comrade Trotsky is not only absolutely wrong but is judging something on which he is amazingly ill-informed*.
...The second paper from Comrade Trotsky...contains, first, an extremely excited but profoundly erroneous ‘criticism’ of the Political Bureau decree on setting up a financial triumvirate....
Secondly, this paper flings the same fundamentally wrong and intrinsically untrue accusations of academic method at the State Planning Commission, accusations which lead up to *the next incredibly uninformed statement by Comrade Trotsky*....”
In a letter to Lyubimov written in 1909 Lenin stated,
“As regards Trotsky, I must say that I shall be most vigorously opposed to helping him if he rejects (and he has already rejected it!) equality on the editorial board, proposed to him by a member of the C.C. Without a settlement of this question by the Executive Committee on the Bolshevik Centre, no steps to help Trotsky are permissible.”
In a letter to Alexandra Kollontai written in 1917 Lenin really blasted Trotsky by saying,
“Pleasant as it was to learn from you of the victory of N.Iv. and Pavlov in Novy Mir (I get this newspaper devilishly irregularly;...it was just as sad to read about the bloc between Trotsky and the Right for the struggle against N. Iv. *What a swine this Trotsky is*--Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to the Social-Democrat!”
In another Letter to Kollontai written after August 1915 Lenin stated,
“Roland-Holst, like Rakovsky...like Trotsky, in my opinion, are all the most harmful ‘Kautskians,’ in the sense that all of them in various forms are for unity with the opportunists, all in various forms *embellish* opportunism, all of them (in various way) preach eclecticism instead of revolutionary Marxism.”
In an equally powerful letter to Inessa Armand written about the same time Lenin states,
“...Trotsky arrived, and *this scoundrel* at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldist! That’s it!! *That’s Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself==twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can*....”
In a 1911 article entitled “The State of Affairs of the Party” Lenin stated,
What is the attitude of the other factions abroad? Trotsky, of course, is solidly behind the liquidators....
There are Party people, and liquidators who have broken away and set up a separate group. Groups abroad, like those of Golos, Trotsky, the Bund, and Vperyod, want to cover up the break-away of the liquidators, help them to hide under the banner of the R.S.D.L.P., and help them to thwart the rebuilding of the R.S.D.L.P. It is our task at all costs to rebuff the liquidators and, despite their opposition, recreate the R.S.D.L.P....
The ‘conciliators’ put their trust in Trotsky, who has clearly executed a full turn towards the liquidators....
We Bolsheviks have resolved on no account to repeat the error of conciliationism today. This would mean slowing down the rebuilding of the R.S.D.S.P, and entangling it in a new game with the Golos people (or *their lackeys, like Trotsky*), the Vperyodists and so forth.”
In 1911 Lenin stated in an article,
“We know that there are people who, while recognizing the need to fight the liquidators, object to a complete break with them and continue (even now!) to speak of ‘conciliation’ or ‘agreement’. Among these people are not only *the ‘loyal servitors’ of Trotsky, whom very few people now take seriously*.”
In a 1912 “Report on the Work of the International Socialist Bureau” Lenin stated,
“I was no longer about able to talk to the Golos people and looked at Trotsky with disapproval, especially over the letter.”
In a 1915 letter to Herman Gorter Lenin stated,
“I congratulate you on your splendid attacks on opportunism and Kautsky. Trotsky’s principal mistake is that he does not attack this gang.”
In a letter to Kamenev Lenin stated,
“What is the purpose of our policy now, at this precise moment? To build the Party core not on *the cheap phrases of Trotsky and Co.* but on genuine ideological rapprochement between the Plekhanovites and the Bolsheviks.”
In a March 1916 letter to Henriette Roland-Holst Lenin commented,
“What are our differences with Trotsky? This must probably interest you. *In brief--he is a Kautskyite*, that is, he stands for unity with the Kautskyites in the International and with Chkheidze’s parliamentary group in Russia. We are absolutely against such unity.... Trotsky at present is against the Organizing Committee (Axelrod and Martov) but for unity with the Chkheidze Duma group!!
We are decidedly against.”
In a 1909 Letter to Zinoview Lenin stated,
“As regards Pravda, have you read Trotsky’s letter to Inok? If you have, I hope it has convinced you that Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-Co. type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the CC and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the who rascally crew of Pravda at our expense!)--or break with this swindler and and exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.
In a 1916 letter to Zinoviev Lenin said,
“We had better deal with Trotsky in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata; he has to be dealt with at greater length.”
In another letter to Zinoviev in the same year Lenin stated,
“...It’s ghastly. I don’t know what to do. Yet something has still to be written about opportunism (I have 1/2 of it ready), about defeatism, and about Trotskyism (including the Duma group + P. S. D.).
In a March 1916 article entitled The Peace Programme Lenin stated,
“What about Trotsky? He is body and soul for self-determination, but in his case, too, it is an empty phrase, for he does not demand freedom of secession for nations oppressed by the ‘fatherland’ of the socialist of the given nationality; he is silent about the hypocrisy of Kautsky and his followers.’
In a July 1916 article entitled The Discussion on Self-determination Summed Up Lenin stated,
“No matter what the subjective ‘good’ intentions of Trotsky and Martov may be, teir evasiveness objectively supports Russian social-imperialism.”
In a report to the 7th Congress of the R.C.P. (B.) Lenin stated,
“What I predicted has come to pass; instead of the Brest peace we have a much more humiliating peace, and the blame for this rests upon those [e.g. Trotsky] who refused to accept the former peace.”




COMMENTS BY TROTSKY ABOUT LENIN
And we must certainly not forget the following opinions of Lenin expressed by Trotsky in a 1913 Letter to Chkeidze in which he stated,
“The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.“

WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT LADIES AND GENTLEMAN; SPELLED OUT BY 10 POSTS IN ALL ITS GORY DETAIL.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY WAS THE ONLY MAJOR LEADER NOT AT LENIN’S FUNERAL.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY WAS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION OF GENERAL SECRETARY
OF THE PARTY.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKY’S PROGRAM WAS SOLIDLY AND ROUNDLY REJECTED AT THE 13TH PARTY CONGRESS IN
1924 AND THE 15TH PARTY CONGRESS IN 1927, THE LATER BY A VOTE OF 740,000 T0 4,000.
AND ABOVE ALL, NOW YOU KNOW WHY TROTSKYISM IS NOT MARXISM-LENINISM.
See, at least Trotskyists never make posts like this and actually expect people to read them. It comes with being grounded in reality.

[3A CCCP]

Oh so the workers in the USSR allowed the USSR to be dismantled because they had been "mentally propagandised" into it!
That is completely against materialist philosophy.
Why did the soviet workers even allow the perestroika and glasnost to happen, surely they would have been able to direct state policy away from that!
But, when the time came, they just didn't.
For the first time in their lives, they were given the chance to VOTE for multiple candidates, and the most pro capitalist candidate WON!
They chose capitalism over socialism, this is especially bizzare as they were supposed to be the ruling class in socialism, but then voted into power the group which was to re institute capitalism to Russia.
It isn't possible to brainwash millions of soviet workers in order to get them to vote for the end of socialism.
Reality shows that when given the choice, soviet people chose to end the socialist system.
The berlin wall came down, and east and west germans celebrated, when the polish toppled the soviet dictators via the trade unions, the polish workers were happy.
The referendums that took place, in no way showed a clear support for the continuation of socialism. The republics wanted to succeed and actively pursued its end!
Basically, when the proletariat were given the chance to vote, they voted against you! and the system you call socialism or communism. Sorry, but its true.
and your denial of the mass labour camps where hundreds of thousands if not millions died is totally disgusting, but i understand you need to, just as apologists for Hitler, deny holocausts!


The western propaganda that you are parroting might have some credibility coming from your lips if you actually lived and worked in the USSR, especially during the period of 1985-1992. For someone who never set foot in our Motherland it is amazing how much insight you think you have into what the Soviet workers thought, did, and felt.

I lived there before and during those terrible years of the Gorbachev betrayal and believe that I have a more than slightly better picture of what occured than an armchair Trotskyite such as yourself.

This discussion is ludicrous. You are a Trotskyite running dog of the western imperialists who used Gorbachev to bring down our Motherland. Believe what you will. I just hope I was able to get some of my insight across to other list members.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

See, at least Trotskyists never make posts like this and actually expect people to read them. It comes with being grounded in reality.

Trotskyites just make unsubstantiated statements and expect people to believe them. That is the "grounded reality" of Trotskyism.

You could read those posts or comrade Lenin's works. The posts may be long, but alot shorter than going through all 45 volumes that comrade Lenin wrote.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Renewed Revolution]

Neutral.

-Bjork

[Comrade Krell]

the thing about Trotsky's position being in the minority is true. but why was it the case? It's a well documented fact that after Trotsky's departure Stalin removed many pro trotsky members of the party and only let pro stalin members join. no wonder the true leninist view was outvoted.

and also, Lenin was an internationalist he disagreed with the whole socialism in one country bollocks, if you can call it socialism that is.
You're an anarchist, so I don't expect you to know what your talking about, but Stalin was always for the international working class, what he wasn't for however was the inane ultranationalist 'revolutionary war' Trotsky advocated during negotiations with the Germans for Russia to exit WWI, it was nothing short of imperialism and would have engendered outbursts of nationalistic reaction - not class consciousness - in Europe. This is why parties of each country should be able to develop revolutionary strategy unique to the situation of their country, and the situation of the proletarial formation in society etc, to claim a blanket solution for the world, or 'world revolution', ignores the fact that different areas of the world are developed differently, mostly distorted by colonialism and imperialism, or simply historical factors and the issue that industrialization came from Europe first etc.

Let us see what Lenin said on the subject:


In other words, the law of violent proletarian revolution, the law of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine as a preliminary condition for such a revolution, is an inevitable law of the revolutionary movement in the imperialist countries of the world.

Of course, in the remote future, if the proletariat is victorious in the principal capitalist countries, and if the present capitalist encirclement is replaced by a socialist encirclement, a "peaceful" path of development is quite possible for certain capitalist countries, whose capitalists, in view of the "unfavourable" international situation, will consider it expedient "voluntarily" to make substantial concessions to the proletariat. But this supposition applies only to a remote and possible future. With regard to the immediate future, there is no ground whatsoever for this supposition.

Trots fail to read anything. They still think that Socialism in One Country was invented by Stalin and Stalin alone when in fact socialism in one country was coined by Georg Vollmar of the SPD in 1878 and then borrowed by Lenin and then Stalin. The funniest thing with Trots is that with all their ''internationalism'' they have had only ONE country that they upheld and said their ''people'' brought revolution there, which would mean in practice Trotskyism is Socialism in one and ONLY ONE country. Its amazing they have not found one other country besides the USSR to uphold as socialist(or even anti-imperialist!) since the nearly 100 years since 1917.

As Lenin said, the more the proletariat is ready for revolution, the more likelihood there is of a peaceful transition to socialism. In other words, the more guns you have aimed at their head, the more gracefully they will bow to the working class's power, seeing that they are basically screwed.

Also you might want to point out that Trots often fail to read Lenin's works properly where it was stated that the FINAL victory of socialism depended on a majority of socialist nations. They leave out that key word final and assume this means that socialism can't be victorious in any one country at all.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Unfortunately my opinion is rather negative. :(

I think Trotskyists too often suffer from the same thing they accuse of their 'Stalinist' counterparts; adherence to the infallibility of their leaders' theories. Indeed, too often it seems that Trotskyism is little more than a struggle of leadership.

What's more, Trotskyists take a very liberal stance in regards to parliament elections, unions, self-determination struggles. Importantly, their stances on those issues are similar to that of 'Stalinists'

Their opinion on the state is also very similar to that of Stalinists; they both argue for the setting up of a strong, cemented 'transitional state' which will 'wither away' in due course.

Really, the only difference I can pinpoint is that Trotskyists attacked the deformation of the USSR at an earlier stage, whilst Stalinists attacked the deformation at a later stage.

The difference of Stalinists and Trotskyists, really is only a matter of several decades.

Not a very good choice for a communist revolutionary in my opinion.:(

Unfortunately, those who magnate to Trotskyist groups are often very misinformed about 'Stalinist' Russia (in particular, the Cliffites). There are many reasons to criticise the USSR, but not on the lies and slander of capitalist sources.

Also, they are often know very little about Marxist theory and seem to argue for some sort of mixed social democracy and social justice. I refer to these as 'champagne socialists.'

That being said, I have met some very decent Trotskyists and most on this site seem decent.

That's the problem with Trotskyism - there are that many sects its quite difficult to characterise them all! :ohmy:

(I prefer the to lump them all under the 'shit' and 'historically obsolete' category. Jokes. :p)

[stevensen]

note: there has been no splinter in the CPN(M) after they joined the political process. wonder whether u have fought in nepal to criticise prachanda. u even know about nepal and the struggle there? first go and fight in somewhere like nepal then criticise prachanda

[Random Precision]

Really, the only difference I can pinpoint is that Trotskyists attacked the deformation of the USSR at an earlier stage, whilst Stalinists attacked the deformation at a later stage.

The difference of Stalinists and Trotskyists, really is only a matter of several decades.

Not really. Most of the Stalinists didn't even blink when Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin was made public- they just kept parroting the Moscow line and further lapsed into reformism. Mao and his followers were among the only ones who broke from that line, and there were very political reasons behind that.

[KC]

See, at least Trotskyists never make posts like this and actually expect people to read them. It comes with being grounded in reality.

:laugh:

I always love how Stalinists have to resort to attrition to gain any ground in debate on this subject. It's actually quite comical to see them waste all their time being so long-winded when what they're saying is completely invalidated by a cursory knowledge of history or Marxist theory.


You could read those posts or comrade Lenin's works. The posts may be long, but alot shorter than going through all 45 volumes that comrade Lenin wrote.

It is quite obvious that comrade Lenin was against Stalin's rise to power in the party, the lack of democracy, the growing bureaucracy and considered Trotsky one of the best Bolsheviks he ever had the pleasure of working with. I don't need to read all of Lenin's works or your lame post to know that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really. Most of the Stalinists didn't even blink when Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin was made public- they just kept parroting the Moscow line and further lapsed into reformism. Mao and his followers were among the only ones who broke from that line, and there were very political reasons behind that.

What about Hoxha's more hardline "anti-revisionism"? :confused:

[Random Precision]

What about Hoxha's more hardline "anti-revisionism"? :confused:

At that point Hoxha was a follower of Mao.

It is true that there were other "anti-revisionist" sects that formed perspectives independent of both Khrushchev and Mao, but they were relatively few and far between. The same remains true today.

[farleft]

Generally negative and primarily due to Kronstradt.

[RNK]

Jesus fucking shit, Trotskyists and Stalinists are like two fucking children arguing over who Mother Lenin loved more.

GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

Mother Lenin's love for Mao was so powerful that it trancended the bonds of time and space, assholes, so fucking deal. As the baby, Mother loves US more, and you're both just fighting over the scraps of pre-digested love that happen to accidently dribble out the sides of our heart-mouths.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The western propaganda that you are parroting might have some credibility coming from your lips if you actually lived and worked in the USSR, especially during the period of 1985-1992. For someone who never set foot in our Motherland it is amazing how much insight you think you have into what the Soviet workers thought, did, and felt.

I lived there before and during those terrible years of the Gorbachev betrayal and believe that I have a more than slightly better picture of what occured than an armchair Trotskyite such as yourself.

This discussion is ludicrous. You are a Trotskyite running dog of the western imperialists who used Gorbachev to bring down our Motherland. Believe what you will. I just hope I was able to get some of my insight across to other list members.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

just tell me why the soviet proletariat didn't go to war against capitalist restoration but rather voted for the most capitalist candidate. the soviet proletariat were supposed to be the ruling class and holders of soviet state power.

just explain it to me in from a marxist perspective. please.

[chegitz guevara]

Jesus fucking shit, Trotskyists and Stalinists are like two fucking children arguing over who Mother Lenin loved more.

GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

Mother Lenin's love for Mao was so powerful that it trancended the bonds of time and space, assholes, so fucking deal. As the baby, Mother loves US more, and you're both just fighting over the scraps of pre-digested love that happen to accidently dribble out the sides of our heart-mouths.

:laugh:

[chegitz guevara]

just tell me why the soviet proletariat didn't go to war against capitalist restoration but rather voted for the most capitalist candidate. the soviet proletariat were supposed to be the ruling class and holders of soviet state power.

just explain it to me in from a marxist perspective. please.

The working class was exhausted and demoralized.

[Marsella]

The working class consisted less than 10% of the population.

Supposing that half of the working class were decimated, does a proletarian society depend on that 5%. Or 10%?

What materialistic proof do you have that the working class was 'exhaustive' and 'demoralised.'

Presumably they would have been 'empowered' and 'exhilirated' considering that they had (1) kicked out the autocratic Tsar (2) defeated the numerous invading armies and (3) were about to begin the building of the first socialist society!

Or maybe not?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

He is talking about the period around 1989 - 1991 Tiger.

So, the working class would have made up the vast majority of the people in those times.

[Marsella]

Ah my mistake. :lol:

Well why wasn't there a worker's counter-revolt?

I think there would be several reasons.

Firstly, by that period in time the choice between a capitalist 'democratic' (and I use this term very freely) Russia and a 'undemocratic' capitalist Russia was not a lot to chose from. For most people I doubt it really mattered; life was the same regardless of this or that politician.

At the very least, a capitalist Russia offered an illusion of a different life. The system which had been in place for the past 70 years was not satisfactory to workers.

Secondly, it could just be that the working class did not have power over the state. Yes, they do have power to act as a class, but the capitalist state is not one in which workers do not have a domain of control.

It is rather like Trots arguing 'Why didn't they overthrow the Bolsheviks if they didn't like them?' Well - the state itself has a purpose to ensure its existence via police, army etc. Why would workers revolt against such a (and I hate to use the word) authoritative structure (although Engels used that exact term)? The fear of repercussions is a material one.

Thirdly, and most likely, that this was all the result of material conditions, which had been the result, not of several decades of change in Russia, but of the past 70 years. Under Lenin and Stalin (in name only) the process of industrialising Russia, the expansion of the proletariat, the centralisation of monopolies under the state: they are all indications of the growing strength of capitalism.

If we are to take the Marxist stance on how society 'organises' itself, we assume that material change comes first and then, and only then, does the superstructure of society change.

By 1990 all pretences of 'Soviet Russia' had fallen, and so the name did too.

Why else do you think so many Russian businessmen hang pictures of Stalin and Lenin on their walls?

They have much to thank them for! :lol:

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The thing is, the most violent internal periods were the civil war (1917-1923) and Great Purges (the early to late 1930's).

During and post the civil war and the confrontation between different factions inside the ruling party and the consolidation of by one faction of the party to the detriment of the others, seems like an era of social change unparralelled in russia since the initial revolutions of 1917.

The massive social upheval was in order to increase the speed of the industrialisation drive. The opposition to this, prior to the purges, was the left oppositions among others, who argued for an attempt to salvage the dire situation in enacting sectret voting, free speech, right to strikes.

The working class under stalin, was anything but cooperative. In fact, it is the period in which workers changed jobs in greater frequency than any capitalist state at the time. Where workers actively wrecked and sabotaged machinery.

In a police state, what the soviet workers were doing, was the very essense of class consciouness.

The increasing exploitation of the soviet workers, the hundreds of thousands of left oppositionists who died in the gulags and all the other forms of resistance to stalin and the bureacracy lead me to believe that it was an era of social change which the workers and the revolutionaries who brought through the initial revolution had lost power totally, and would never see it again.

So, i think that the significance of the change in 1989-91, is that it was so peaceful, leading us to assume that those who were in power in soviet russia (the bureacratic administration) were those who would end up as the new oligarchy in capitalist russia.

The counter revolution in the 1930's, is why the russian bourgiosie worship stalin, and the stalinist lies about Lenin is why they adore lenin also.

[CheGuevaraRage]

Jesus fucking shit, Trotskyists and Stalinists are like two fucking children arguing over who Mother Lenin loved more.

GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

Mother Lenin's love for Mao was so powerful that it trancended the bonds of time and space, assholes, so fucking deal. As the baby, Mother loves US more, and you're both just fighting over the scraps of pre-digested love that happen to accidently dribble out the sides of our heart-mouths.

He has a point.Dont fight beetwen yourselves...thats what enemy wants..the capitalists and impreialists...
Fight the enemy..together!!!

[R3V0LUTI0N(A)RY]

He has a point.Dont fight beetwen yourselves...thats what enemy wants..the capitalists and impreialists...
Fight the enemy..together!!!

I agree. There would be much more progress on the radical left if there was more co-operation and less internal fights and power struggles.

But yeah, I view Trotsky positively.

[Fiskpure]

Actually I was trying to show the absurdity of the argument that Stalin being awarded the Order of the Red Banner ''bewildered'' the Bolshevik comrades (as well as challenging Trotsky's notion that Stalin was a ''third rate figure'')when Lenin and the other members of the Central Committee gave it to him, certainly they did not think he was a ''third rate figure'' during the Civil War.

Stalin was in charge in Tsaritsyn, during one part in the civil war. All he was doing here, was disobeying orders sent directly by Commissar Trotsky. Trotsky was forced to go to Lenin with this errand to get the stuff functioning around Volga.

Stalin kept promoting friends and opportunists (as he would do when he became General Secretary) to high ranking positions here. He even had the name of the city changed to Stalingrad. Tells me a lot that he was nationalist-dictator only seeking more power and not giving a d-mn of the worldwide workers emancipation.

[Mala Tha Testa]

Dont fight beetwen yourselves...thats what enemy wants..the capitalists and impreialists...
Fight the enemy..together!!!

indeed! and i meant to vote neutral but voted positive.:mad:
neutral because i still need to do some reading before i can get an opinion on Trotsky...

[Comrade B]

You know, I think a larger reason that Trotskyists hate Stalinists could be the whole being exiled and having the leader murdered by the KGB a bit more than a competition for being known as the true communists of Russia. To hell with Stalin. He did more to fight communism than the United States. He took on the name of communist and destroyed our name. If Hitler called himself a communist, Stalinists would have back him, just for the sake of defending the word.

[Pogue]

All these Russians are dead, lets look towards the communism of the future.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think it's true at all that we should all unite. Trotskyists and Stalinists can unite for demonstrations against war, for demos supporting strikes, etc. But revolutioniaries never will and never should have any sort of organizational unity with the Stalinists or any sort of reformist or centrist group. Politically, we are rivals in the deepest sense of the word.

[Pogue]

When it comes down to it, the difference between Stalinists and Trotskyists wont matter. The revolution either wont happen due to petty divides, or it will happen autonomously because all the 'revolutionaries' are too busy calling each other names to lead it.

[Yehuda Stern]

The difference will matter. The Stalinists will help suppress the revolution, the revolutionaries will fight against them, and if it'll fail, it'll be mostly due to the 'broad lefts' crying for unity. Like Lenin said,


Unity with the opportunists means alliance between the workers and "their national bourgeoisie and splitting the international revolutionary working class.
~Socialism and War, 1915

[Pogue]

Most who call themselves Stalinists and Trots wont be fundamental to the revolution. It wont happen accroding to some groups ideology.

[Yehuda Stern]

You are correct. It'll happen according to the maturity of the revolutionary consciousness of the workers. It'll be carried through not by the party which calls itself Marxist but by the party which proves itself in practice.

[Pogue]

I'd like to see it, a true party to help lead people, but the far left in the UK does not seem to be in a good enough state to get down to doing that.

[Yehuda Stern]

Most of what is called the far left in the UK (in the world, for that matter) is not revolutionary. It's centrist, which means that it gives the revolutionary rhetoric but the content of its politics is reformist. If we want to build revolutionary parties, we have to do the work ourselves. Trying to fuse disparate groups in some patched-up front / party only leads to... well, to RESPECT-Unity, or the Socialist Alliance, or any other failed experiment of the British left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why do you subscribe to such reductionism? You are assuming that your interpretation of "democratic centralism" is the only valid one, and that the misunderstood democratic centralism isn't an anachronism.

Oh, and circle-sects such as yours don't make revolutions - mass parties do:

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and Building the Mass Party of the Working Class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-step-forward-t79382/index.html)

Social Proletocracy: The Revolutionary Merger of Marxism and the Workers' Movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html)

The Road to Power and International Organization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html)

[Yehuda Stern]

Please, Kautskyite, neither your talk of 'sectarianism' nor your fancy new terms can disguise the fact that what you follow is rehashed old social-democracy. There is one Marxism. There is no Marxist family. Despite the fact that we all adhere formally to Marx, we are rivals politically, and discussion on internet forums cannot change that. Go make your broad fronts with other left groups. You won't get much further than the Socialist Alliance or RESPECT-Unity.

[RedAnarchist]

I thought JR was American?

[More Fire for the People]

Neutral. Trotsky brings a great understanding of the Soviet Union and he helped elaborated some of Lenin ideas... but ultimately he wasn't a theoretician and he was a very poor military tactician.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please, Kautskyite, neither your talk of 'sectarianism' nor your fancy new terms can disguise the fact that what you follow is rehashed old social-democracy. There is one Marxism. There is no Marxist family. Despite the fact that we all adhere formally to Marx, we are rivals politically, and discussion on internet forums cannot change that. Go make your broad fronts with other left groups. You won't get much further than the Socialist Alliance or RESPECT-Unity.

Yeah, because Jacob Richter is such a Kautskyite. :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to the notion of not throwing babies out with the bath water?

Oh, and just to let you in on a secret: you've got something half-right. There is one revolutionary Marxism. However, there is a Marxist "family." If you even bothered to read those links, you would have noted my "Problems with 'Social Democracy'" critique.

[Led Zeppelin]

and he was a very poor military tactician.

What?

He was the Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs and organized the Red Army, leading it through the Civil War, how was he a "poor military tactician"?

[OI OI OI]

he wasn't a theoretician
permanent revolution

[More Fire for the People]

permanent revolution
He was only elaborating on Marx's notion of permanent revolution.

[Yehuda Stern]

If you even bothered to read those links, you would have noted my "Problems with 'Social Democracy'" critique.

I have no doubt that you have criticisms of modern social-democracy. The fact, though, is that you're in favor of broad fronts and non-vanguardist parties, hallmarks of the social-democracy of Kautsky's time. That is why I referred to you as a Kautskyite.

[Led Zeppelin]

He was only elaborating on Marx's notion of permanent revolution.

So you're not going to back up your claim of him being a very poor military tactician then?

[More Fire for the People]

So you're not going to back up your claim of him being a very poor military tactician then?
From the prospective of a proponent of protracted people's war, yes.

[Led Zeppelin]

From the prospective of a proponent of protracted people's war, yes.

Ok, fair enough.

[Lost In Translation]

I haven't read enough on Trotsky, but I do find him and his theory quite intriguing. Therefore, I voted positive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have no doubt that you have criticisms of modern social-democracy.

I wasn't even referring to modern "social democracy" in my critique above. Read below.


The fact, though, is that you're in favor of broad fronts

Wanna bet? :rolleyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html


It does not help that Trotsky himself fanned the ironically sectarian notion “March separately, but strike together!” Hence, there is the proliferation of Cliffite, Grantite, Mandelite, etc. groups, each being its own little circle (and then some when considering that each little circle considers itself as having the “correct line” and everyone else as being wrong).

I criticize Trotsky's "workers' united front" BS because of insufficient organization and a fetish for autonomy.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html


Note here Lenin’s willingness during this time to work with reformists within an overall organization, not just within some “workers’ united front.” The then-success of the German Social-Democratic Party, in spite of its formation during a relative lack of class struggle (not unlike today, but due to German nationalism over unification), inspired this willingness.

P.S. to Led Zeppelin: This is between our resident Trotskyist equivalent of the sectarian 3A CCCP and myself.


and non-vanguardist parties, hallmarks of the social-democracy of Kautsky's time. That is why I referred to you as a Kautskyite.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html

Please read:


"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)



With the above having been said, what was the pre-WWI history of the international proletariat's first vanguard party like?

Now, as for classical social democracy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/plain-proletocracy-language-t77979/index.html


When Russian Marxism emerged, it came in the form of “social democracy,” modeled after the German experience. Although this classical “social democracy” was a far cry from the liberal and economistic “social democracy” of today, the theoretical underpinnings of the former were rife with serious problems from the outset [...]

Therefore, the question to ask is: “social democracy” for whom? That is, was this “social democracy” for the working class, for the petit-bourgeoisie, or for the bourgeoisie? History has irrevocably answered that question.

[Trystan]

Neutral.

He was OK. He was a bureaucrat and somewhat authoritarian, but his intentions were undoubtedly good.

[Yehuda Stern]

The USSR in War (which was published in 1939, following the outbreak of WW2) clearly shows that Trotsky did not regard the USSR as a class society and maintained his original position (as explained in The Revolution Betrayed) that the USSR was a workers state suffering from bureaucratic degeneration.

And yet you criticize the Mandelites, Cliffites and Grantites for not working together. Sounds like a frontist position to me. And you criticize Trotsky for having a fetish for autonomy in a front... no, you're not for broad fronts at all, are you?

I saw your article on the SPD, and even reprinting it now does not make the idea that it was a vanguard party any less ridiculous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I thinking you quoted the wrong post. :confused:


I saw your article on the SPD, and even reprinting it now does not make the idea that it was a vanguard party any less ridiculous.

Don't you think you've got the wrong definition of "vanguard," in the first place?

[comrade stalin guevara]

support all communist
trotsky,stalin,lennin and.........me

[Lost In Translation]

support all communist
trotsky,stalin,lennin and.........me

I think your username is kinda contradicting your view of trotsky :lol::lol::lol:

[comrade stalin guevara]

MY VIEW of trotsky,stalin,etc is they are comrades i am comrade we are all equal trotsky or me he is none greater then me as i am then him
unfortunately they are dead so i have the advantage

[Comrade Rage]

MY VIEW of trotsky,stalin,etc is they are comrades i am comrade we are all equal trotsky or me he is none greater then me as i am then him
unfortunately they are dead so i have the advantage
But Trotsky wasn't a comrade...he was an enemy of the people.

[comrade stalin guevara]

im not going to defend trotsky to a fellow stalinist no way i just say



communist of all theroy.......UNITE

[Comrade Rage]

communist of all theroy.......UNITEI guess you have a point. I don't mind working with Trot Parties against fascism, for example.

[Redmau5]

But Trotsky wasn't a comrade...he was an enemy of the people.

And the people would supposedly include every single Bolshevik that Stalin had executed?

[Yehuda Stern]

Don't you think you've got the wrong definition of "vanguard," in the first place?

Well, let's see. A vanguard party organizes only the most class conscious sections of the working class, those having a deep understanding of Marxism. The SPD had all levels of consciousness, from reformist to revolutionary. So no, the SPD was not a vanguard party.

[Faction2008]

Please be paitent with me. I am new here and I am just starting to learn about socialism so I don't know a whole lot. I have seen a lot of praise for people like Karl Marx and Engel but not a lot for Trosky. Is he less popular among left wingers?

[comrade stalin guevara]

Trotsky is liked by the trotskyist.

[Trystan]

r Trosky. Is he less popular among left wingers?

Not really. Actually, Trotskyism was the main current of the "New Left" that emerged in the '60s. He's a prominent figure in the anti-Stalinist left and his critique of the USSR is still very important. He is much more popular than the authoritarian Stalin and Mao, maybe even Lenin.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Yes, however trotsky aint popular here on revleft,
us stalinist hate him and anarchist hate him more

[Faction2008]

Yes, however trotsky aint popular here on revleft,
us stalinist hate him and anarchist hate him more
I thought you would because I am reading a good book called "Young Stalin" and Stalin used to say stuff like "Trosky was pretty by useless" and he used to hate people who followed Trosky.

Thank you both for your explanation.

[Trystan]

I thought you would because I am reading a good book called "Young Stalin" and Stalin used to say stuff like "Trosky was pretty by useless" and he used to hate people who followed Trosky.

Thank you both for your explanation.

He certainly wasn't useless during the October Revolution, or the civil war. When Stalin was pissing about in a brothel, Trotsky was agitating for revolution.

[Faction2008]

He certainly wasn't useless during the October Revolution, or the civil war. When Stalin was pissing about in a brothel, Trotsky was agitating for revolution.
Sorry I should of said. This part of the book when he said he was useless was when Stalin was in his twenties and just met him for one of the first times so probably a while before the revolution happened. I think it was at a congress in London, can't remember.

[Lost In Translation]

Actually, many on revleft support trotskyism (ok, not many, but a good handful). However, it doesn't mean we like Trotsky. We just like his theories :)

[OI OI OI]

Yes, however trotsky aint popular here on revleft,
us stalinist hate him and anarchist hate him more
haha
Trots hate Stalin so do anarchists therefore Stalin is unpopular here on revleft too.

Seriously instead of comparing people using the method of popularity compare their ideas, methods and tactics instead.

[Aurelia]

Trotsky just butthurt because everyone in the USSR realized he was a fraud, so he fled to be with his true bourgeois friends in America.

[Redmau5]

Trotsky just butthurt because everyone in the USSR realized he was a fraud, so he fled to be with his true bourgeois friends in America.

Butthurt? What exactly do you mean by that?

[Vendetta]

Trotsky just butthurt because everyone in the USSR realized he was a fraud, so he fled to be with his true bourgeois friends in America.

And Stalin was the savior who was supposed to bring the USSR into a new era of socialism?

Did I get that right?

[INDK]

Negative. In an anti-Lenin and not pro-Stalin perspective.

[Hessian Peel]

I, not surprisingly, have a negative view of Trotsky.

Many modern-day Trots don't even represent his philosophy; such is the extent of their degeneration into social-democratic ambiguity and bullshit. Some of the better ones (like Alan Woods for example) I would actually consider a minor influence, but for the most part they're irrelevant opportunists.

One thing that annoys me is these "reclaim the streets" and "anti-war" Trots who are essentially pacifists yet the man they profess to follow was a ruthless Red Army general at one stage. For the anarchists sitting on the fence on this thread – look at what the bastard did to the Makhnovists! :(

[Redmau5]

One thing that annoys me is these "reclaim the streets" and "anti-war" Trots who are essentially pacifists yet the man they profess to follow was a ruthless Red Army general at one stage.

Like who? Give me some examples of these pacifist "Trots".

[Hessian Peel]

Like who? Give me some examples of these pacifist "Trots".

The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland)/People before Profit Alliance/ (Irish) Anti-War Movement. This organisation(s) are pacifists, unless of course you're a Muslim living in a country currently occupied by the US or one of its allies.

The Socialist Party (Ireland) are much the same.

There's Two.

[Redmau5]

The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland)/People before Profit Alliance/ (Irish) Anti-War Movement. This organisation(s) are pacifists, unless of course you're a Muslim living in a country currently occupied by the US or one of its allies.

The Socialist Party (Ireland) are much the same.

There's Two.

As a member of the Socialist Party, I can explicitly tell you that the organisation is not pacifist. And while I may disagree with the SWP on many issues, it's pretty clear they're not pacifist either.

As both groups advocate revolution (which is more likely than not going to be violent), I fail to see how either would qualify as pacifist. Or is this just typical unsubstantiated slander?

[Hessian Peel]

As a member of the Socialist Party, I can explicitly tell you that the organisation is not pacifist. And while I may disagree with the SWP on many issues, it's pretty clear they're not pacifist either.

As both groups advocate revolution (which is more likely than not going to be violent), I fail to see how either would qualify as pacifist. Or is this just typical unsubstantiated slander?

The SWP and the SP are eurocommunists/social-democrats/reformists.

How does your party intend to bring about revolution?

The revolution is likely to be violent, especially in a country like Ireland when part of the process will involve defeating British imperialism.

But of course your party upholds the British claim to sovereignty in occupied Ireland and sees the issue of Irish sovereignty as irrelevant, unless it concerns the 26 counties of course.

You're what Lenin described as "economists" – you have neither the courage nor the conviction to handle the national question.

Please tell me if I'm wrong because I'd be delighted to hear it.

[Redmau5]

The SWP and the SP are eurocommunists/social-democrats/reformists.The Socialist Party aren't a reformist party. Could you please provide some evidence to support your slander?


How does your party intend to bring about revolution?Um, we don't intend to bring about revolution. That's for the working-class to do. But I'm sure you're aware of the work we do in regards to ordinary working-class people living in Ireland, and if you aren't, I'll be more than happy to direct you to some of our campaigns both past and present. What, may I ask, does your organisation do? Because as someone who lives on the Falls road, the only place I tend to see Republican socialists is in the pub or at the Easter parade every year.


The revolution is likely to be violent, especially in a country like Ireland when part of the process will involve defeating British imperialism.So when we get the Brits out, what do we do with the remaining half of the northern population who consider themselves British? Or will they just immediately accept the 32-county workers' republic once it's established?


But of course your party upholds the British claim to sovereignty in occupied IrelandNo we don't. The Socialist Party is opposed to the British occupation in Ireland. We just recognise that it's not as simple as removing British soldiers and bulldozing British garrisons.


you have neither the courage nor the conviction to handle the national question.The Socialist Party has long been opposed to the British occupation. We opposed the intervention of British troops in the North in the first place in 1969, at at time when many other groups were welcoming them with open arms. We have a very clear position on the national question, a position which calls for the creation of a socialist united Ireland. The difference is we're not blinded by some irrational romanticism about simply freeing "Mother Ireland" from British imperialism. We recognise that the establishment of a united socialist state in Ireland requires the support of the protestant working-class, something which the republican left have continuously ignored even if they continue to pay a faint lip-service to the idea.

If you do intend to remove the British state by force of arms,(or by peaceful methods, God forbid!), what exactly do you intend to do about the protestant workers here?

[Yehuda Stern]

Zoolander, you claim to oppose the occupation, but you say its "not that simple." I've heard similar claims that if American forces pull out of Iraq, a terrible Islamic regime will arise there, and if the Zionist state is abolished, then the Palestinians will massacre the Jews. Is it really "opposing the occupation" if you're more interested in the rights of the Unionist colonizers than in those of the Irish, just like leftists (like the Spartacists) who value the 'rights' of the Israeli Jews more than those of the Palestinians, then despite all the pretty words, you're supporting the occupation.

[comrade stalin guevara]

trots is a idiot.
negative, but it dont matter Stalin solved that problem.

[Leo]

I feel a bit of a realism is necessary here.


I've heard similar claims that if American forces pull out of Iraq, a terrible Islamic regime will arise thereWell, yeah, it clearly will, at least in some parts of Iraq. Anyone who has the faintest of what is going on in Iraq knowns this.


and if the Zionist state is abolished, then the Palestinians will massacre the Jews.Again, Palestinian bourgeois nationalist factions (Hamas to name the most vocal one) openly declared that they were interested in doing that.

It is not a matter of which bourgeois faction wins a certain war. It is a question of how the war ends. It is a question of whether the imperialist war will be turned into civil war or not. This is the basis of internationalist opposition to imperialist wars.

I regard those who enthusiastically cheer for bourgeois nationalists in Palestine or Iraq to be chauvinists, since they ignore the interests of the working class in those countries by supporting the national bourgeoisie out of liberal pity and guilt.

[Yehuda Stern]

The fundamental disagreement between us is that you conceive of our epoch as a 'new' epoch, where all bourgeois states are imperialists. But the Leninist, the Marxist conception, is that since at least WWI, the chief danger to humanity is imperialism. Therefore, in a clash between an imperialist state and a non-imperialist one, we support the oppressed people's fight against imperialism regardless of its leadership. I must say for us that we regard as pro-imperialist those who take a neutral stand in such situations.

By the way, if


Well, yeah, it clearly will, at least in some parts of Iraq. Anyone who has the faintest of what is going on in Iraq knowns this.

does this mean that you oppose American withdrawal from Iraq?

[Redmau5]

Is it really "opposing the occupation" if you're more interested in the rights of the Unionist colonizers than in those of the Irish

But how am I more interested in the rights of unionists? I'm posing a pragmatic question regarding the national issue in Ireland, one which I feel has nearly always been overlooked by the republican movement in favour of simply removing British soldiers from the north. In the past, as I'm sure you well know, loyalists haven't been afraid to use extreme violence when ever they've felt their "identity" is under threat. Simply removing the border through an armed campaign against the British state and establishing an all-island government won't remove the fears which exist among protestant workers. Labeling them as colonizers and refusing to recognise any fears they have, however misplaced those fears might be, won't make the problem go away.

[Yehuda Stern]

You are posing the question in pragmatic terms, but this sort of pragmatism smells a bit of a pro-colonialist sentiment. Counterrevolutionary violence is always cited by reformists as a reason to postpone a revolution - the same with such withdrawals. The point is, the occupiers and colonists will always react violently to an attempt to undermine their power and privilege. The fight will always be bloody. All revolutionaries can do is appeal to the British and Irish Protestant workers for their solidarity, and to make all efforts to secure it. But no one should expect freedom to be won without blood being shed.

[Hessian Peel]

The Socialist Party aren't a reformist party. Could you please provide some evidence to support your slander?

You support the GFA/SAA. That's one example.


Um, we don't intend to bring about revolution. That's for the working-class to do. Indeed.


But I'm sure you're aware of the work we do in regards to ordinary working-class people living in IrelandYes.


What, may I ask, does your organisation do?éirígí has only been a political party for just over a year and is still mainly campaigns-based (i.e. the party hasn't developed any set-in-stone policies as of yet).


Because as someone who lives on the Falls road, the only place I tend to see Republican socialists is in the pub or at the Easter parade every year.That's probably the case, but I take it you're talking about the RSM?


So when we get the Brits out, what do we do with the remaining half of the northern population who consider themselves British? Why does something have to be "done with them"?

They're just like any other section of the Irish working class and they'll play an equal part in destroying the occupation and capitalism.


Or will they just immediately accept the 32-county workers' republic once it's established?Yes.


No we don't. The Socialist Party is opposed to the British occupation in Ireland. We just recognise that it's not as simple as removing British soldiers and bulldozing British garrisons. Well obviously; the entire superstructure of the occupation has to be defeated and destroyed. "It's not as simple" smacks of a rejection of the concept of Irish national soveregnty in favour of trying to win Unionists over. You sound like SF.



The Socialist Party has long been opposed to the British occupation.Really?


We opposed the intervention of British troops in the North in the first place in 1969That's completely different to opposing the occupation itself. The troops that were deployed in 1969 were simply reinforcements, there was already a 5,000 strong garrison here not to mention a paramilitary police force and militias like the B Specials. We've now returned to the pre-69 setup with the permanent garrison remaining in place.


at at time when many other groups were welcoming them with open arms.Such as?


We have a very clear position on the national question, a position which calls for the creation of a socialist united Ireland.I'm glad to hear it.


The difference is we're not blinded by some irrational romanticism about simply freeing "Mother Ireland" from British imperialism.That's also good to know because neither am I.


We recognise that the establishment of a united socialist state in Ireland requires the support of the protestant working-classYes.


something which the republican left have continuously ignored even if they continue to pay a faint lip-service to the idea.That's not true.


If you do intend to remove the British state by force of arms,(or by peaceful methods, God forbid!)The conditions at present do not favour armed struggle, but the British will not leave peacefully and so I wouldn't rule anything out ("by any means necessary" my friend).


what exactly do you intend to do about the protestant workers here?Nothing. Why, what's wrong with them?

[Leo]

The fundamental disagreement between us is that you conceive of our epoch as a 'new' epoch, where all bourgeois states are imperialists.

Yes, this is the theoretical difference, on the other hand the implications of it go way further than itself.


But the Leninist, the Marxist conception, is that since at least WWI, the chief danger to humanity is imperialism. Therefore, in a clash between an imperialist state and a non-imperialist one, we support the oppressed people's fight against imperialism regardless of its leadership.

The reality which you are ignoring is that there are classes, class interests and class antagonisms among what you call the "oppressed peoples". There is no such entity as the "people", all societies are made out of classes and the ruling class and the exploited class have fundamentally different interests, interests that are completely opposed to each other. When you support the "oppressed people's fight against imperialism" you are basically telling the working class of those societies to support their own ruling class, and not to bother themselves with things such as class struggle or socialism when their ruling class is fighting against the oh-so-evil enemy. You think you are only supporting the "oppressed people's fight" against this or that stronger power, but what you are first of all supporting is the ruling class of a certain society against the working class of that society.


I must say for us that we regard as pro-imperialist those who take a neutral stand in such situations.

My position is not a neutral one, it is the position of calling to turn the imperialist war into revolutionary civil war. It's not that we just don't take the side of this or that bourgeois nationalist: we completely oppose them both and condemn all their crimes.

This said, we consider your position of supporting the weaker bourgeois nationalists to be pro-imperialist, as well as anti-working class and also objectively chauvinistic.


does this mean that you oppose American withdrawal from Iraq?

No, I wouldn't say I oppose it. I was simply pointing out the facts.

[Aurelia]

Solution to Trots = ice pick

You need to strike quickly though, or they will rape you with a copy of 'the permanent revolution'.

[Leo]

Trolling is not allowed on this website.

Consider yourself officially warned.

[Yehuda Stern]

The reality which you are ignoring is that there are classes, class interests and class antagonisms among what you call the "oppressed peoples".

I think it's the other way around - I most definitely recognize that all nations are made of different classes, whether aristocratic or oppressed. You do speak of class interests but not of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states.


It's not that we just don't take the side of this or that bourgeois nationalist: we completely oppose them both and condemn all their crimes.

The subtleties are not relevant - when one equates the dominating imperialists with the dominated peoples of the third world, one objectively supports the status quo wherein the imperialists enforce their will on the world. There is no being neutral in either the class struggle or the struggle between imperialism and those that it subjugates.


This said, we consider your position of supporting the weaker bourgeois nationalists to be pro-imperialist, as well as anti-working class and also objectively chauvinistic.

Well, we do not support them, as I have said many times. You might want to try and understand things said to you by others in a debate and not just write up counterarguments to a straw man.

[Leo]

The reality which you are ignoring is that there are classes, class interests and class antagonisms among what you call the "oppressed peoples".

I think it's the other way around - I most definitely recognize that all nations are made of different classes, whether aristocratic or oppressed.

So wait - you think the "oppressed nations" are made out of "aristocratic" and "oppressed" classes instead of bourgeois and proletarian classes?


You do speak of class interests but not of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states.

Well, I do speak of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states. Colonialism was basically the origin and motor of the development of central capitalist countries in the ascendant period of capitalism, whereas imperialism is the expression of the epoch of decay of world capitalism.

How is this any relevant by the way?


There is no being neutral in either the class struggle

Yes, and you are taking the side of the bourgeoisie.


Well, we do not support them, as I have said many times.

You defend and advise other to "form a military front" with them. I don't really care if you say you support them or not, you quite clearly de facto support them.

Obviously you are in Israel, and I am sure your positions do put you in a serious risk, and obviously it is something positive to oppose the ruling class in ones own country, and of course neither you are going to Palestine to form a military front with the bourgeois factions there nor are you going to make anyone go there to form a military front.

However, had you been active in Palestine rather than Israel and actually followed this policy, your organization would de facto be simply another military recruitment office for the bourgeois nationalist factions.


when one equates the dominating imperialists with the dominated peoples of the third world

So let's elaborate this. Do you think there is a proletariat and a bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think that the bourgeoisie of the West should not be equated with the bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think one is better, one exploits less or doesn't exploit at all etc? Do you think that the proletariat of the West should not be equated with the proletariat in the third world? Do you think one is too advanced or one is too backwards to be equated? Does the interests of the workers in the third world in common with the workers in the West, or with their own ruling classes, regardless of whether they are "anti-imperialist nationalists", "national liberationists", Stalinists etc.? How do you explain that while nationalist bourgeois factions pursue their own interests locally and to an extent internationally, they act as at least partial pawns of bigger powers in international politics, who in turn act accordingly to their alliences with even bigger powers which even you would call imperialist (the relationship between Hamas-Iran-Russia is a good example of such line)? How do you exist that either all those "movements" managed to become strong and significant when they had the backing of bigger powers or they were directly founded by bigger imperialist powers?

[Leo]

The reality which you are ignoring is that there are classes, class interests and class antagonisms among what you call the "oppressed peoples".

I think it's the other way around - I most definitely recognize that all nations are made of different classes, whether aristocratic or oppressed.

So wait - you think the "oppressed nations" are made out of "aristocratic" and "oppressed" classes instead of bourgeois and proletarian classes?


You do speak of class interests but not of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states.

Well, I do speak of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states. Colonialism was basically the origin and motor of the development of central capitalist countries in the ascendant period of capitalism, whereas imperialism is the expression of the epoch of decay of world capitalism.

How is this any relevant by the way?


There is no being neutral in either the class struggle

Yes, and you are taking the side of the bourgeoisie.


Well, we do not support them, as I have said many times.

You defend and advise other to "form a military front" with them. I don't really care if you say you support them or not, you quite clearly de facto support them.

Obviously you are in Israel, and I am sure your positions do put you in a serious risk, and obviously it is something positive to oppose the ruling class in ones own country, and of course neither you are going to Palestine to form a military front with the bourgeois factions there nor are you going to make anyone go there to form a military front.

However, had you been active in Palestine rather than Israel and actually followed this policy, your organization would de facto be simply another military recruitment office for the bourgeois nationalist factions.


when one equates the dominating imperialists with the dominated peoples of the third world

So let's elaborate this. Do you think there is a proletariat and a bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think that the bourgeoisie of the West should not be equated with the bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think one is better, one exploits less or doesn't exploit at all etc? Do you think that the proletariat of the West should not be equated with the proletariat in the third world? Do you think one is too advanced or one is too backwards to be equated? Does the interests of the workers in the third world in common with the workers in the West, or with their own ruling classes, regardless of whether they are "anti-imperialist nationalists", "national liberationists", Stalinists etc.? How do you explain that while nationalist bourgeois factions pursue their own interests locally and to an extent internationally, they act as at least partial pawns of bigger powers in international politics, who in turn act accordingly to their alliences with even bigger powers which even you would call imperialist (the relationship between Hamas-Iran-Russia is a good example of such line)? How do you exist that either all those "movements" managed to become strong and significant when they had the backing of bigger powers or they were directly founded by bigger imperialist powers?

[Yehuda Stern]

So wait - you think the "oppressed nations" are made out of "aristocratic" and "oppressed" classes instead of bourgeois and proletarian classes?

You're misreading me. The sentence should have been read as saying that all nations are made of classes - both the aristocratic (imperialist) nations and the oppressed (third world) nations.


Well, I do speak of the difference between imperialist and colonialist states. Colonialism was basically the origin and motor of the development of central capitalist countries in the ascendant period of capitalism, whereas imperialism is the expression of the epoch of decay of world capitalism.

Colonialist - should be 'colonial.' That is why you missed the relevance.


Yes, and you are taking the side of the bourgeoisie.

Hah, Devrim was right, you are young and brash.

[Leo]

I'm taking it that you don't really have anything to say in response to my post.

[Yehuda Stern]

Seeing as you misinterpreted, consciously or not, most of my post, I assumed you would prefer to rephrase most of your reply.

[Devrim]

Yes, and you are taking the side of the bourgeoisie.
Hah, Devrim was right, you are young and brash.

It doesn't mean he is wrong though. I think that objectively your politics take the side of one faction of the bourgeois over the other, and preforms a reactionary role in tying any part of the the working class that may be influenced by you to that section of the bourgeois.

I just don't shout it at people so often.

Devrim

[Leo]

Seeing as you misinterpreted, consciously or not, most of my post, I assumed you would prefer to rephrase most of your reply.Well, one if it was a question asking you to clarify some bits of your previous post. As for the other one, if it would read like that:


You do speak of class interests but not of the difference between imperialist and colonial states.Yeah, that's right. I don't speak of the difference between "imperialist and colonial states" because I think what you call colonial states are parts of world imperialism, have to be aligned with other, bigger imperialist powers, and pursue their own imperialist interests in a smaller scale. The difference I see there is one of strength, not one of the class character or the imperialist character of the states. This is our analysis, which is mostly based on Rose Luxemburg's analysis.

By the way, those states are not in any way "colonial". An "independent state" can not be colonial, it goes against the definition*. You can of course say that they are dependent, and subjected to this or that bigger imperialist power, which obviously will be true, but so are all the supposedly "anti-imperialist" and national "liberation" movements.

*colonial: 1. of or pertaining to a colony (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colony). 2. of or pertaining to a period when a country or territory was a colony. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colonial)

Anyway, you didn't respond to these parts of my post:


You defend and advise other to "form a military front" with them. I don't really care if you say you support them or not, you quite clearly de facto support them.

Obviously you are in Israel, and I am sure your positions do put you in a serious risk, and obviously it is something positive to oppose the ruling class in ones own country, and of course neither you are going to Palestine to form a military front with the bourgeois factions there nor are you going to make anyone go there to form a military front.

However, had you been active in Palestine rather than Israel and actually followed this policy, your organization would de facto be simply another military recruitment office for the bourgeois nationalist factions.

...

So let's elaborate this. Do you think there is a proletariat and a bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think that the bourgeoisie of the West should not be equated with the bourgeoisie in the third world? Do you think one is better, one exploits less or doesn't exploit at all etc? Do you think that the proletariat of the West should not be equated with the proletariat in the third world? Do you think one is too advanced or one is too backwards to be equated? Does the interests of the workers in the third world in common with the workers in the West, or with their own ruling classes, regardless of whether they are "anti-imperialist nationalists", "national liberationists", Stalinists etc.? How do you explain that while nationalist bourgeois factions pursue their own interests locally and to an extent internationally, they act as at least partial pawns of bigger powers in international politics, who in turn act accordingly to their alliences with even bigger powers which even you would call imperialist (the relationship between Hamas-Iran-Russia is a good example of such line)? How do you exist that either all those "movements" managed to become strong and significant when they had the backing of bigger powers or they were directly founded by bigger imperialist powers?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, that's right. I don't speak of the difference between "imperialist and colonial states" because I think what you call colonial states are parts of world imperialism, have to be aligned with other, bigger imperialist powers, and pursue their own imperialist interests in a smaller scale.

That's charming. I know that's your theory, Leo - I was just outlining the differences between us. Sadly this theory clashes with the reality in which a handful of imperialist powers hold the rest of the world by the throat. But no matter.


By the way, those states are not in any way "colonial". An "independent state" can not be colonial, it goes against the definition*.

I prefer 'colonial' to 'third world,' but you can use that if it's so important for you to use the Wikipedia definition.


You defend and advise other to "form a military front" with them. I don't really care if you say you support them or not, you quite clearly de facto support them.


Well, no, not at all. Marx and Engels supported the rebellion of the Polish and Irish aristocracies against their Russian and British oppressors regardless of their political nature, because their fight against oppression was objectively progressive. Lenin gave military support to the Kerensky government, only to later overthrow in the first workers' revolution in the world. Did any of these Marxists act as recruiters for bourgeois armies? Or maybe they just knew a lot better than you the difference between military and political support?


So let's elaborate this. Do you think there is a proletariat and a bourgeoisie in the third world?

Yes, obviously there is, and peasants and a middle class and so on.


Do you think that the bourgeoisie of the West should not be equated with the bourgeoisie in the third world?

The bourgeoisie of the west is imperialist. That of the third world, though reactionary, is much weaker and therefore much less of a threat for the workers of the world. The number one enemy of humanity is imperialism.


Do you think one is better, one exploits less or doesn't exploit at all etc?

Neither is better, but the bourgeoisie of the third world has less power to exploit and exploits on a much smaller scale too.


Do you think that the proletariat of the West should not be equated with the proletariat in the third world?

It's the same class. The difference is that in the west there is a proletarian aristocracy which benefits from imperialism, which is the basis for the reformist parties and the union bureaucracy, and which infects the whole class with bourgeois ideology. It is the duty of Marxists, among other things, to fight their influence.


Does the interests of the workers in the third world in common with the workers in the West, or with their own ruling classes, regardless of whether they are "anti-imperialist nationalists", "national liberationists", Stalinists etc.?

The whole working class of the world has the same class interests, although its immediate objectives differ not only between the west and east but also between different countries.


How do you explain that while nationalist bourgeois factions pursue their own interests locally and to an extent internationally, they act as at least partial pawns of bigger powers in international politics, who in turn act accordingly to their alliences with even bigger powers which even you would call imperialist (the relationship between Hamas-Iran-Russia is a good example of such line)?

That is not always true. In many cases, these groups are forced to come to a clash with some imperialist power, even though they wish to become part of the status quo. When Hamas and Hizb Allah fought Israel, they served the interests of no particular imperialist power, and therefore their victory had to be supported by Marxists. The Luxemburgist conception that all national liberation struggles must end up serving the aims of some imperialist power is a 100% false (although in many cases it turns out that way).

[Redmau5]

You support the GFA/SAA. That's one example.We called for a yes vote at the time, because we believed it would give workers in the north a breathing space after years of violence. We don't support the GFA, and if you believe we do then you honestly don't know anything about our organisation.


éirígí has only been a political party for just over a year and is still mainly campaigns-based (i.e. the party hasn't developed any set-in-stone policies as of yet).I've met a few éirígí members at demos, most recently at the anti-Bush protests in Belfast. Some of your comrades seem very willing to get involved in campaigns with other left groups, something which doesn't seem to appeal to you.


That's probably the case, but I take it you're talking about the RSM?I'm talking about all republican left groups. The Workers Party, IRSP or éirígí, I haven't seen any sort of activity by any group.


Why does something have to be "done with them"?

They're just like any other section of the Irish working class and they'll play an equal part in destroying the occupation and capitalismRight, you just completely ignored what I said and came up with something else. How do you intend to win the protestant working-class over? How are they going to play their part in removing British imperialism if they consider themselves British?


"It's not as simple" smacks of a rejection of the concept of Irish national soveregnty Nah, it really doesn't. It smacks of recognition of what's happening in Ireland, both north and south. In the north, the majortity of people want to remain part of Britain. In the south, I dare say the majority of working-class people don't give a shit either way about the national question, because they're more concerned with keeping their heads above water. To try and forward the national question as the most important issue at a time when working-class people are struggling to pay the bills is a complete negation of class politics.


Really?Yes. We may not worship the Tricolour like ya'll do, but we still oppose foreign occupation.


The troops that were deployed in 1969 were simply reinforcements, there was already a 5,000 strong garrison here not to mention a paramilitary police force and militias like the B Specials. We've now returned to the pre-69 setup with the permanent garrison remaining in place.
Indeed, and we opposed and continue to oppose any British military presence on the island.


Such as?Well, the OIRA's indifference to the loyalist pogroms was an open invite to the British Army's intervention. The NICRA also welcomed the British Army with open arms.


That's not trueIt pretty much is.


but the British will not leave peacefullyThat remains to be seen, because I doubt the British establishment has much interest in Northern Ireland any more.


Nothing. Why, what's wrong with them?Once again comrade, you've ignored my question.

[Leo]

That's charming. I know that's your theory, Leo - I was just outlining the differences between us.

Yeah, and I was clarifying them further.


I prefer 'colonial' to 'third world,' but you can use that if it's so important for you to use the Wikipedia definition.

There really is only one definition to "colonial", and it means something different.

Of which country are the third world states "colonies" of?


Well, no, not at all. Marx and Engels supported the rebellion of the Polish and Irish aristocracies against their Russian and British oppressors regardless of their political nature, because their fight against oppression was objectively progressive.

Yeah. They did not support the Czech national liberation movement because they thought it was not progressive. They supported US over Mexico because they thought US was more progressive. It was a different era, in which factions of the bourgeoisie could be progressive.


Lenin gave military support to the Kerensky government

Well, actually it was the other way around. Kerensky gave support to the Soviets defending themselves from the offensive, and it was a mistake on his part. Under the growing threat of the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party, Kerensky and Kornilov conspired to forcibly overthrow the Soviets in August. Kornilov, however, decided that Kerensky's democratic government had vaci*llated too much in respect to the Soviets, and had therefore played itself out. As a result Kornilov revised his plans and aimed to overthrow Kerensky in the process of crushing the Soviets.

Purely out of an instinct for survival, yet unable to sense fully the fundamental threat to bourgeois order represented by the Soviets, Kerensky pleaded for their all-out support once he had discovered Kornilov's duplicity. The Provisional Government placed itself in practice at the mercy of the Soviets in Petrograd as a protection against Kornilov. The Soviets dissolved Kornilov's detachment from within in the space of four days. In doing so, the awareness of its own strength, gained by this mass movement of the Soviets against Kornilov's coup, provided the Russian working class with the assurance it needed to smash the Provisional Government itself a few weeks later in October.


Very soon, the Kerenskys of this world, and, when it came to it, the entire world bour*geoisie, were to understand the enormity of the error committed by Kerensky when he opposed Kornilov's coup. He provided the Soviets with the unique opportunity to gain the upper hand in the balance of class forces in Russia by means of their struggle against Kornilov. Never again would factions of the democratic bourgeoisie commit such a blunder in their struggle against the proletariat. That this situation presented itself in such a uniquely favourable manner to the proletariat was partly due to the period (capitalism had just entered its period of permanent crisis in 1914), and partly to the ignorance of the bourgeoisie as to the real danger represented by the armed proletariat. After all, with the exception of the localised case of the Paris Commune in 1871, the workers had never destroyed the bourgeois state before.

Did the proletariat defend Kerensky during the coup? The Trotskyists have muddled the whole issue and just because the workers' Red Guards, the soldiers and sailors didn't arrest Kerensky during the coup, they claim that this was ‘military support'. But in order to ‘sup*port' something there must be something there in the first place to support. All evidence shows that the main, if not all, the thrust of the resistance to the coup came from the soviets, not from the few detachments still loyal to Kerensky. De*tachments it should be noted which were intensely demoralised. The workers were not interested in defending Kerensky and the Provisional Government. They correctly saw the coup as the attempt of the counter-*revolution to crush the Soviets.


Did any of these Marxists act as recruiters for bourgeois armies?

No, but then again, they neither gave military support nor entered and formed "military fronts" with bourgeois factions.


The bourgeoisie of the west is imperialist. That of the third world, though reactionary, is much weaker and therefore much less of a threat for the workers of the world.

It's easy saying that when you are not living under their rule, isn't it?


The number one enemy of humanity is [Western] imperialism.

This is the root of where I see chauvinism in Western Trotskysts', Maoists', Stalinists' etc. arguments in support of national liberation.


Neither is better, but the bourgeoisie of the third world has less power to exploit and exploits on a much smaller scale too.

This is completely false. They have less power yes, but not less power to exploit or oppress, and they exploit on a much bigger, although less denser scale.


It's the same class.

Yeah, exactly.


The difference is that in the west there is a proletarian aristocracy which benefits from imperialism, which is the basis for the reformist parties and the union bureaucracy

And what is the basis for reformist parties and the union bureaucracy in the third world do you think?

[By the way I find the "proletarian aristocracy" theory to be a mistaken one but that's the topic of another discussion.]


It is the duty of Marxists, among other things, to fight their influence.

Well, since we consider the reformist parties and trade-unions to be a part of the bourgeois state apparatus, on the basic level obviously I agree that it is necessary to fight their influence.

You know, they are not, that is the trade-unions and reformist parties, any better here either though.


The whole working class of the world has the same class interests, although its immediate objectives differ not only between the west and east but also between different countries.

Yes, possibly, but it's political objective is surely one, that is the world dictatorship of the proletariat, and objectives that differ between countries are to do with the specific working and living conditions, that is the specific economical conditions of the workers in certain countries as well as certain cities and workplaces.


That is not always true. In many cases, these groups are forced to come to a clash with some imperialist power

Yeah, but while they are supported by another greater imperialist power.


When Hamas and Hizb Allah fought Israel, they served the interests of no particular imperialist power,

They very, very cleared served Iranian interests, as well as Russian interests. They are aligned with those powers, it's where their financial resources and weapons are coming from.


The Luxemburgist conception that all national liberation struggles must end up serving the aims of some imperialist power is a 100% false (although in many cases it turns out that way).

That sentence contradicts itself.

[blackdwarf]

he was against bureaucrats and he was democratic.

Tell that to the Red Army conscripts forced to march to their deaths with machine guns at their backs.:(

[AGITprop]

Tell that to the Red Army conscripts forced to march to their deaths with machine guns at their backs.:(

Trotsky did indeed threaten soldiers by saying that anyone who retreated would be shot. On the other hand, this was actually never really carried out, and Trotsky later admitted that this was an empty threat.

Even if this was the case, the Red Army soldiers fate would have been far worse in the hands of the enemies.

[KC]

Well, actually it was the other way around. Kerensky gave support to the Soviets defending themselves from the offensive, and it was a mistake on his part. Under the growing threat of the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party, Kerensky and Kornilov conspired to forcibly overthrow the Soviets in August. Kornilov, however, decided that Kerensky's democratic government had vaci*llated too much in respect to the Soviets, and had therefore played itself out. As a result Kornilov revised his plans and aimed to overthrow Kerensky in the process of crushing the Soviets.

Purely out of an instinct for survival, yet unable to sense fully the fundamental threat to bourgeois order represented by the Soviets, Kerensky pleaded for their all-out support once he had discovered Kornilov's duplicity. The Provisional Government placed itself in practice at the mercy of the Soviets in Petrograd as a protection against Kornilov. The Soviets dissolved Kornilov's detachment from within in the space of four days. In doing so, the awareness of its own strength, gained by this mass movement of the Soviets against Kornilov's coup, provided the Russian working class with the assurance it needed to smash the Provisional Government itself a few weeks later in October.


Very soon, the Kerenskys of this world, and, when it came to it, the entire world bour*geoisie, were to understand the enormity of the error committed by Kerensky when he opposed Kornilov's coup. He provided the Soviets with the unique opportunity to gain the upper hand in the balance of class forces in Russia by means of their struggle against Kornilov. Never again would factions of the democratic bourgeoisie commit such a blunder in their struggle against the proletariat. That this situation presented itself in such a uniquely favourable manner to the proletariat was partly due to the period (capitalism had just entered its period of permanent crisis in 1914), and partly to the ignorance of the bourgeoisie as to the real danger represented by the armed proletariat. After all, with the exception of the localised case of the Paris Commune in 1871, the workers had never destroyed the bourgeois state before.

Did the proletariat defend Kerensky during the coup? The Trotskyists have muddled the whole issue and just because the workers' Red Guards, the soldiers and sailors didn't arrest Kerensky during the coup, they claim that this was ‘military support'. But in order to ‘sup*port' something there must be something there in the first place to support. All evidence shows that the main, if not all, the thrust of the resistance to the coup came from the soviets, not from the few detachments still loyal to Kerensky. De*tachments it should be noted which were intensely demoralised. The workers were not interested in defending Kerensky and the Provisional Government. They correctly saw the coup as the attempt of the counter-*revolution to crush the Soviets.

Actually, the Bolsheviks called upon Kerensky and the SR's to take power, knowing full well that if they refused they would be exposed as reactionaries and if they actually went through with it they would fail miserably. This is what I thought who you quoted was referring to, at least.


This is the root of where I see chauvinism in Western Trotskysts', Maoists', Stalinists' etc. arguments in support of national liberation.

Yes, unfortunately it is a very prominent notion of imperialism/anti-imperialism in developed (western) countries. I have to deal with this kind of crap on a regular basis (i.e. "Support those opposed to US imperialism at all costs!" kind of garbage).


They very, very cleared served Iranian interests, as well as Russian interests. They are aligned with those powers, it's where their financial resources and weapons are coming from.

Is Hizb'allah still openly receiving funding/arms from Iran? Do you have any more info on that?


That sentence contradicts itself.

No it doesn't. It says that only many, but not all, anti-imperialist struggles benefit some imperialist power.

[Leo]

Actually, the Bolsheviks called upon Kerensky and the SR's to take power, knowing full well that if they refused they would be exposed as reactionaries and if they actually went through with it they would fail miserably.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, can you clarify it further?


Yes, unfortunately it is a very prominent notion of imperialism/anti-imperialism in developed (western) countries. I have to deal with this kind of crap on a regular basis (i.e. "Support those opposed to US imperialism at all costs!" kind of garbage).It's good to hear that there are militants who are trying to deal with this.


Is Hizb'allah still openly receiving funding/arms from Iran? Do you have any more info on that?I don't know the details currently, but it is very well known that Iran has been the main arms and funds provider of Hezbollah who, in it's own turn, always said that they were aligned with and following the Iranian regime.


No it doesn't. It says that only many, but not all, anti-imperialist struggles benefit some imperialist power.Is it not contradictory to say that sıomething is %100 false, but mostly true also?

Anyway, is there any examples of "anti-imperialist" struggles not benefiting this or that imperialist power?

[Dust Bunnies]

I voted positive because I think Trotsky could of been a better leader than Stalin.

[JimmyJazz]

Voted neutral on Trotsky. Now I will spill my impression of Trotskyists. :lol:

If there is one thing I am still pretty ignorant about, it is the taxonomy of different socialist tendencies. I just know that I have encountered a few really ridiculous Trots: super dogmatic and uncomplicated in their arguments for revolution, and equally as dogmatic and simple in their argument against "Stalinism". I'm no fan of the Soviet Union under Stalin, but (1) he has a hell of a lot more in common with Lenin that many Trots will admit, considering that many will not admit he has anything in common, and (2) at least some of what Stalin did has to be seen as out of necessity to defend the Soviet Union. You can't say that every authoritarian thing Lenin ever did was done to defend the revolution, but every authoritarian thing Stalin ever did was out of sheer personal evil.

I'm also bothered by stupid statements like "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of Stalinism and the best thing that ever happened for socialism", and the fact that many Trots have gone on to become neocons and right-wingers.

Also, Trotskyists often seem too dogmatically focused on revolution in their own countries, and less likely to admit the predominantly international character of the class struggle today. They are clinging to a political program from 1930 that doesn't acknowledge the importance of historical trends like Keynsianism (which lessens potential for revolution in Western countries) and globalization (which heightens the need for revolution in non-Western countries and for solidarity among these countries).

For those reasons, I find I generally like both the strongly anti-capitalist anarchists and the intelligent Stalinists (I have met them) a bit better than the kind of Trots who go around calling themselves Trots and praising Trotsky endlessly. Both of the former two groups seem to think for themselves much more than the Trots do, on average. I will probably always think that completely disowning the Soviet Union was too extreme a move, and was at least partly motivated by both a capitulation to right-wingers and cultural misunderstanding/racism on the part of Americans/Euros toward Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. And I will probably also always think that Trotskyism is uniquely susceptible to right-wing backsliding.

But, as I stay on this site longer I expect I will come to respect many people who will turn out to be members of some Trot tendency. So I remain very open-minded in that respect.

[Incendiarism]

I'm also bothered by stupid statements like "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of Stalinism and the best thing that ever happened for socialism"

I distinctly remember Trotsky saying in The Revolution Betrayed that the USSR under Stalin was preferable to no USSR at all.

[Random Precision]

If there is one thing I am still pretty ignorant about, it is the taxonomy of different socialist tendencies. I just know that I have encountered a few really ridiculous Trots: super dogmatic and uncomplicated in their arguments for revolution, and equally as dogmatic and simple in their argument against "Stalinism".

I think that if you look at those people in a few months, they won't be Trotskyists any more. Since we consider ourselves Marxists we shy away from dogmatism. Comrade Nadezhda was one such "Trotskyist" who never actually read Trotsky or Lenin or Marx and ended up a vulgar Stalinist, who was just restricted for her racist anti-immigrant politics.


I'm no fan of the Soviet Union under Stalin, but (1) he has a hell of a lot more in common with Lenin that many Trots will admit, considering that many will not admit he has anything in common,

What do you think they had in common?


and (2) at least some of what Stalin did has to be seen as out of necessity to defend the Soviet Union. You can't say that every authoritarian thing Lenin ever did was done to defend the revolution, but every authoritarian thing Stalin ever did was out of sheer personal evil.

Yes, I agree.


I'm also bothered by stupid statements like "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of Stalinism and the best thing that ever happened for socialism",

I've never heard this argument or anything like it from any Trotskyist organization. You're far more likely to hear that "the collapse of Stalinism was the biggest catastrophe since the rise of Stalinism" as the Spartacist League likes to put it.


and the fact that many Trots have gone on to become neocons and right-wingers.

This is by no means unique to Trotskyists. Disillusioned revolutionaries come from all tendencies, and the tendency of Trotskyists to become neo-conservatives is something that has been blown out of proportion by American liberals.


Also, Trotskyists often seem too dogmatically focused on revolution in their own countries, and less likely to admit the predominantly international character of the class struggle today.

I actually think that many Trotskyist organizations are too focused on the international character of the revolution. We're infamous for setting up "toy internationals" that draw their member organizations into bickering over international orientation rather than focusing on the tasks in front of them. That's been a huge problem in the history of the Trotskyist movement.


They are clinging to a political program from 1930 that doesn't acknowledge the importance of historical trends like Keynsianism (which lessens potential for revolution in Western countries) and globalization (which heightens the need for revolution in non-Western countries and for solidarity among these countries).

Not all of us. The International Socialists (whose main representatives you'll find are the SWP in Britain and the ISO in the United States) have abandoned the Transitional Programme because of exactly the problems you mention.


For those reasons, I find I generally like both the strongly anti-capitalist anarchists and the intelligent Stalinists (I have met them) a bit better than the kind of Trots who go around calling themselves Trots and praising Trotsky endlessly.

Me too. For example, I like Prarie Fire (who is way too intelligent to have those politics) a lot more than someone like fourthinternational.


Both of the former two groups seem to think for themselves much more than the Trots do, on average.

What?


I will probably always think that completely disowning the Soviet Union was too extreme a move,

Something Trotsky, nor most Trotskyists, never did.


and was at least partly motivated by both a capitulation to right-wingers and cultural misunderstanding/racism on the part of Americans/Euros toward Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.

Sorry, I don't really follow.


And I will probably also always think that Trotskyism is uniquely susceptible to right-wing backsliding.

Why?


But, as I stay on this site longer I expect I will come to respect many people who will turn out to be members of some Trot tendency. So I remain very open-minded in that respect.

Good. I hope you'll find that you just met one such person. :blushing:

[Dros]

Yes, I agree.

Ahhh.....

The first step on the long road to recovery.:rolleyes::laugh:

ps: scum.:D:lol::laugh:

[AGITprop]

I distinctly remember Trotsky saying in The Revolution Betrayed that the USSR under Stalin was preferable to no USSR at all.

This is true.

It was of utmost importance that the collectivized mode of production and the colossal gains of the planned economy were protected.

Not to mention the immense social gains, such as free education, healthcare, etc. regardless of the degeneration of the worker's state, which Trotsky spent the rest of his life fighting against.

[JimmyJazz]

Random Precision, thanks for the point-by-point.


What do you think they had in common?

I will admit right up front that I don't know a ton about Soviet History, especially from Stalin - Gorby. However, for two examples that come right to mind:

1. Lenin's/Trotsky's waging of the Civil War seems every bit as brutal and as guided by realpolitik as the Stalin government's conduct to defend the USSR from the Nazis. I'm not attacking or defending either campaign; just saying that they look pretty similar.

2. How can anyone deny that the Cheka was the legitimate precursor to the NKVD? Again, not taking a position on either one, just pointing out the similarity.

Other things about Lenin/Trotsky bother me too, such as their inability to make nice with the Makhnovists (who I'm no fan of, btw, they were anarchist in name only (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml) imo) and their regicide (arguably insignificant, but equally as unnecessary).


I've never heard this argument or anything like it from any Trotskyist organization. You're far more likely to hear that "the collapse of Stalinism was the biggest catastrophe since the rise of Stalinism" as the Spartacist League likes to put it.

Well, I didn't even have to go looking too far. In the Makhno article I linked above, it's given in the first paragraph: "In its broad outlines, their work confirmed that material conditions, rather than Bolshevik original sin, transformed a mass, popular revolution into its opposite, Stalinism."

That quote displays the dual tendency that bugs me about Trotskyism: to find a way for every piece of evidence to either absolve/make a hero out of Lenin or vilify Stalin. Typically, it manages to do both in one sentence.

The mere fact of using simple formulations like "deformed workers' state", "state capitalist", and so on, also bugs me. I realize that these theories all capture something real about the Soviet Union, but the simple catch phrases are repeated in a way that is worrisome. They seem like an attempt to easily deflect right-wing critics of Stalin without engaging in any real mental effort. I often choose not to call myself a Marxist, simply because I think it gives people the impression that I endorse every word the man ever said or wrote. But Marx was extremely brilliant--if I am cautious about giving him that kind of total endorsement, how much more cautious should I be about giving it to Trotsky, Tony Cliff, C.L.R. James, and others?

To be a Leninist, to my mind, just means that you broadly support what he did and the revolution that he made, and would support another one under similar conditions. It doesn't mean that you think every one of his ideas was 100% right, it just means you would support him as a leader, however imperfect. But to support Trotsky, well - since he didn't preside over a socialist country, it's really only his ideas that you can be endorsing. And calling yourself a "Trotskyist" implies to me (and most people, I think) a bit of a personality-cultish acceptance of everything he said or wrote. The label doesn't discriminate between his various contributions at all. The Soviet Union was a personality cult under Stalin, but the Trotskyist movement is one.


I actually think that many Trotskyist organizations are too focused on the international character of the revolution. We're infamous for setting up "toy internationals" that draw their member organizations into bickering over international orientation rather than focusing on the tasks in front of them. That's been a huge problem in the history of the Trotskyist movement.

Well, yes. Perhaps I worded it badly. They are certainly strong internationalists in a sense.

The problem is when they deny that the world has changed, and regard obviously progressive developments like the Cuban Revolution as some sort of revisionism. I had a Trot tell me that the Cuban Revolution wasn't socialist because "a socialist revolution can only (by definition) be led by workers". What? :lol: Is production carried out for profit or is it carried out for use in Cuba? Come on! Socialism is socialism, whether it's put in place by a classic Marxist workers' revolution, a Bolshevik alliance of workers and peasants, a Cuban style rural-based guerrilla revolution, a group of pissed off Parisian students, hippies, nuns, or any other group. The fact that one class is the most likely candidate to carry out a socialist revolution doesn't make it *by definition* the only one that can!

From the wiki article for Ted Grant, this pretty much sums up exactly what I object to:


This stance resulted in the Grantist groups on a world scale leaving the Fourth International after 1965, since Grant considered other Fourth Internationalists as having degenerated into sects under the influence of the ideas of the petty bourgeoisie (guerrillaism, left-wing nationalism, studentism, third-worldism, feminism etc.).

To be fair, that quote also makes it clear that not all Trot tendencies were so dogmatic. But Grant's tendency is also not the only one. The Trot who told me that the Cuban revolution wasn't socialist was a Cliffite.

Marx was a smart guy. Read him, understand him. But don't dogmatically cling to him in the face of an evolving world economy just because you're too lazy to follow new developments. If Marx was alive, following new developments and updating his own theories is exactly what he'd be doing.


Not all of us. The International Socialists (whose main representatives you'll find are the SWP in Britain and the ISO in the United States) have abandoned the Transitional Programme because of exactly the problems you mention.

Thanks, I will definitely read up on the Transitional Programme. I've heard of it but didn't know what it was about.


Me too. For example, I like Prarie Fire (who is way too intelligent to have those politics) a lot more than someone like fourthinternational.

I may get slaughtered for saying this, but if anyone remembers Intelligitimate, I knew him on another site and liked having him around quite a bit. He was extremely well educated on history and imperialism. The fact that he was prickly as fuck doesn't take away from his knowledge, most of which did serve to bolster his position, at least to an extent.

I searched this site for his name and found his "fuck this site" farewell thread. :lol: Oh man, hilarious.


Good. I hope you'll find that you just met one such person. :blushing:

Yes!

Btw, for the most part I was not talking about any Trots I've met on this site, because I haven't really talked to any about these issues. I'm saying this stuff based on Trots I've met on other sites where socialists are a tiny minority.


---------


Incendiarism and Isaak,

I should hope so! Even Daniel Guerin, an anarchist, said in 1970 (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Theory-Practice-Daniel-Guerin/dp/0853451753/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219248908&sr=1-1) that the gains of a planned economy in Russia were important and should be defended even as we push for political reforms and greater worker control. If Trotsky and Trots (enthusiastic supporters of Lenin) could not manage to be at least as charitable about the post-Stalin USSR as an anarchist (who was always extremely reserved in his support for Lenin), then that would be a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

[Crux]

The USFIs support for guerillaism was only damaging to what supposedly would be the vanguard of the workingclass, and the workingclass itself. Much like when they distributed maoist propaganda, later in the 60's and 70's, it was trotskysim that had to take a step back not the other way around. Today the USFI does not claim to be a trotskyist organisation.
Anyway, I support Trotsky and I believe he is one of the most important marxist thinkers of the 20th century.

[KC]

Is it not contradictory to say that sıomething is %100 false, but mostly true also?

It's not contradictory to say most, but not all, anti-imperialist struggles benefit this or that imperialist power, which is what I believe he was trying to say.


Anyway, is there any examples of "anti-imperialist" struggles not benefiting this or that imperialist power?

Russia!

[Random Precision]

1. Lenin's/Trotsky's waging of the Civil War seems every bit as brutal and as guided by realpolitik as the Stalin government's conduct to defend the USSR from the Nazis. I'm not attacking or defending either campaign; just saying that they look pretty similar.

I would agree that it was brutal. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "guided by realpolitik"- I mean, every power in the world was vociferously against the Soviet government and most of them sent troops to back that sentiment.


2. How can anyone deny that the Cheka was the legitimate precursor to the NKVD? Again, not taking a position on either one, just pointing out the similarity.

It definitely was the precursor to the NKVD, both in law and fact. But of course each organization operated under quite different circumstances and with quite different goals.


Other things about Lenin/Trotsky bother me too, such as their inability to make nice with the Makhnovists (who I'm no fan of, btw, they were anarchist in name only imo) and their regicide (arguably insignificant, but equally as unnecessary).

Obviously these things trouble me as well and I've thought a great deal about them. With the regicide I think it's important to remember that the Bolsheviks had planned a trial for Nicholas II, and Trotsky had already selected himself as prosecutor. But they were forced to use that other method when the Czech legion was approaching the place where the Romanovs were being kept (and for the record, it was not Lenin or Trotsky but Sverdlov who ordered that action).

As for the Makhnovists, the article you link to I think does a pretty good job of telling the Bolsheviks' side of the story.


Well, I didn't even have to go looking too far. In the Makhno article I linked above, it's given in the first paragraph: "In its broad outlines, their work confirmed that material conditions, rather than Bolshevik original sin, transformed a mass, popular revolution into its opposite, Stalinism."

But I don't think that equates to "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest thing to ever happen for socialism." The article comes from the ISO, a "Cliffite" organization (which I happen to be close to ideologically). Probably the majority of Trotskyists in the world are "orthodox", which is to say that they keep the degenerated workers state analysis of the USSR and so on. Whereas Cliffites and various other Trotskyist groups believe the USSR and other "socialist states" were state capitalist, but that doesn't necessarily mean we think that their collapse was something to be euphoric about. The collapse of the USSR and glacis countries gave the socialist movement room to move forward, it's true, but we also recognize that it was a bad thing in terms of the economic problems and human suffering that it caused.


The mere fact of using simple formulations like "deformed workers' state", "state capitalist", and so on, also bugs me. I realize that these theories all capture something real about the Soviet Union, but the simple catch phrases are repeated in a way that is worrisome. They seem like an attempt to easily deflect right-wing critics of Stalin without engaging in any real mental effort.

I think you're probably right about this. I don't think that either of those labels accurately describes the nature of "socialist" nations that existed or still exist. But it's true that I still have quite a lot to lear about how the economy operated in the Soviet Union and other such nations, and whether the way that it was run was beneficial in the end to the people.


I often choose not to call myself a Marxist, simply because I think it gives people the impression that I endorse every word the man ever said or wrote. But Marx was extremely brilliant--if I am cautious about giving him that kind of total endorsement, how much more cautious should I be about giving it to Trotsky, Tony Cliff, C.L.R. James, and others?

This is an excellent point, and it's the reason why most intelligent people in the ISO or SWP will reject the label "Cliffite", as his theoretical contributions don't really merit it.

It would be kind of a long, boring tirade for me to try to explain fully why I think Trotsky is different. But essentially I think it's because of 1) his key role in the world's first (and to date, only) proletarian, socialist revolution that ever got off the ground in any meaningful sense, 2) his theoretical contributions updated Marxism to take into account the uneven development of capitalism, and the huge disparities in world economic development, without which we wouldn't have a theoretical leg to stand on, and 3) during about 20 years of reaction in the Soviet Union and worldwide, he was the world's foremost proponent of classical Marxism, however ineffective he might have been at times, and however many mistakes he made along the way. He stands head and shoulders above ALL of his theoretical followers.


To be a Leninist, to my mind, just means that you broadly support what he did and the revolution that he made, and would support another one under similar conditions. It doesn't mean that you think every one of his ideas was 100% right, it just means you would support him as a leader, however imperfect.

That sounds about right.


But to support Trotsky, well - since he didn't preside over a socialist country, it's really only his ideas that you can be endorsing.

Not quite. He did lead a workers state (in conjunction with a few others) for 6-7 years.


And calling yourself a "Trotskyist" implies to me (and most people, I think) a bit of a personality-cultish acceptance of everything he said or wrote. The label doesn't discriminate between his various contributions at all. The Soviet Union was a personality cult under Stalin, but the Trotskyist movement is one.

It's true that some Trotskyist organizations are personality cults for the old man (or sometimes for his less than stellar followers). The Spartacist League is an infamous example. But I don't think merely labeling yourself a Trotskyist makes you accept everything he did or wrote.

But I think you're right in some respects- I much prefer to refer to myself as a Marxist, and only as a Trotskyist if someone asks me to be more specific, which they usually don't.


The problem is when they deny that the world has changed, and regard obviously progressive developments like the Cuban Revolution as some sort of revisionism. I had a Trot tell me that the Cuban Revolution wasn't socialist because "a socialist revolution can only (by definition) be led by workers". What? Is production carried out for profit or is it carried out for use in Cuba? Come on! Socialism is socialism, whether it's put in place by a classic Marxist workers' revolution, a Bolshevik alliance of workers and peasants, a Cuban style rural-based guerrilla revolution, a group of pissed off Parisian students, hippies, nuns, or any other group. The fact that one class is the most likely candidate to carry out a socialist revolution doesn't make it *by definition* the only one that can!

Well, I've read a bit about the revolution in Cuba, and from what I know it sounds like a fairly progressive national-democratic revolution. I would have the same objection to calling it a socialist revolution as the guy you talked to, because I feel that proletarian leadership of the revolution is very much a central principle of Marxism- and there are reasons for why I think this is so beyond sheer dogmatism. That being said, I really don't know enough about the system in Cuba to feel comfortable labeling it either socialist or state-capitalist.


From the wiki article for Ted Grant, this pretty much sums up exactly what I object to:


This stance resulted in the Grantist groups on a world scale leaving the Fourth International after 1965, since Grant considered other Fourth Internationalists as having degenerated into sects under the influence of the ideas of the petty bourgeoisie (guerrillaism, left-wing nationalism, studentism, third-worldism, feminism etc.).

To be fair, that quote also makes it clear that not all Trot tendencies were so dogmatic. But Grant's tendency is also not the only one. The Trot who told me that the Cuban revolution wasn't socialist was a Cliffite.

Well, that article speaks to very specific developments in the history of Trotskyism. The Fourth International after the death of Trotsky became subject to all sorts of right-wing deviations. Its Greek leader, Michel Pablo, believed that capitalism and Stalinism would battle it out for the next couple hundred years, and so the only way forward for revolutionaries was to enter the Stalinist parties secretly and try to change their orientation in a gradual manner. During the sixties, the Fourth International proclaimed that there was going to be a "long detour" from proletarian revolution in favor of guerrilla movements and whatnot. This lead to the American SWP and their "Pathfinder" groups abandoning Trotskyism altogether, and orienting specifically around Cuba instead of the struggle in their own countries. That was what Ted Grant, Tony Cliff and various other Trotskyists were responding to, and they developed differing strategies with various degrees of success- I would argue Grant's strategy of prolonged entry into social-democratic parties has been conclusively demonstrated to be futile, while Cliff's work at building a party on the Bolshevik model was by and large successful.


Marx was a smart guy. Read him, understand him. But don't dogmatically cling to him in the face of an evolving world economy just because you're too lazy to follow new developments. If Marx was alive, following new developments and updating his own theories is exactly what he'd be doing.

I agree entirely.


I may get slaughtered for saying this, but if anyone remembers Intelligitimate, I knew him on another site and liked having him around quite a bit. He was extremely well educated on history and imperialism. The fact that he was prickly as fuck doesn't take away from his knowledge, most of which did serve to bolster his position, at least to an extent.

Well, it's true he knew a lot about history- specifically, the history of the Soviet Union in the nineteen-thirties. But debates with him were always frustrating because he tended to reject all evidence that contradicted his position- even when it came from the same sources he was using, he would find some reason to brush it aside. Gylhile told him in a debate that he structured his arguments in such a way that he could exclude any evidence that didn't suit him, and that his arguments were based quite a bit on emotion instead of reason. I think she was dead on.

Furthermore, I got the idea from him that Stalin debates were essentially the only thing he was on RevLeft for. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy historical bickering as much as the next guy, but with Intel it seemed that the whole world he understood ended in 1952, and he wasn't all that much concerned with the revolution here and now. I could be wrong, but that's the idea I got from him during his time here. The reason I respect Prairie Fire a lot more is that I know she's focused on the class struggle in 2008 instead of on the class struggle as it might have appeared in 1937. And I don't much care for Trotskyists who have such a narrow, historically-focused perspective either.

[JimmyJazz]

RP, good post but a few points:

1. "The collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest thing to ever happen for socialism" is a very close paraphrasing of something I've read, and I believe it was in a book by Haymarket Press (which is ISO, although I don't assume all its authors necessarily are). I don't want you to think I just made it up. Haymarket also publishes a book called Revolutionary Rehearsals (http://books.google.com/books?id=m-ekf1g5llUC&dq=revolutionary+rehearsals&pg=PP1&ots=f46bDPPXvr&sig=lPPZ4_Qeycn3OSU0ttMGiXlO66Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) which has a chapter equating the Polish Solidarity uprising with Allende and various other anti-capitalist movements. Uh, excuse me?

2. Regarding Ted Grant--I would support the Pathfinder tendency in that debate (what I know about it). Cuba represents more than just a socialist revolution (although it was that), it's also an anti-imperialist revolution. Western workers have not really been revolutionary since WWII, as far as I can tell, except maybe in Paris in '68 and perhaps a few other isolated times and places. Going hand in hand with this, they've become fairly willing tools of military imperialism and economic global exploitation waged by their ruling classes against the rest of the world. I think the class struggle has fundamentally changed and taken on an international character. For that reason, it is crucial to protect third world revolutions like Cuba. If some people seem more focused on that task than on organizing for revolution in their own country, its probably because it has more actual immediate promise. Besides, why can't Cuba serve as an example to Western workers? The Pathfinders certainly portray it as such (I've read a few of their books). The most important part of a revolutionary example is the inspiration it creates regarding the possibility for radical progressive change--not the exact blueprint of actions it provides for radicals in other countries with identical material conditions. (No two countries are identical anyway.)

3. This in itself may strike you as dogmatic, but I think it's a bad idea to ever identify yourself with a secondary theorist. For example, Trotsky: if you call yourself a Trotskyist, you may or may not follow his theories to the letter, but your general tendency will always be to regard the theorist that his theories are built on (Marx) as a settled question. In my own experience, Trots have been less eager to spend time on debates about where Marx was right and where he was wrong than anarchistsand libertarian Marxists and even Stalinists have been. They're mainly just interested in inter-Marxist debates. But this narrows their view way too much. For example, if the industrial proletariat begins for various reasons to show less of a potential for carrying out a socialist revolution in certain countries, they'll miss this fact entirely because they take the link between workers and socialism (a key contribution of Marx) to be a given fact.

4. On the idea that only workers can carry out a socialist revolution, I would just take the dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism) of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." There's nothing in that about workers. I don't want to give the impression that I underestimate the importance of Marx's contributions: his critique in the Manifesto of "other socialisms" is right on, in my opinion. But no matter how brilliant his theory of the WC revolution was, it wasn't the last word. There can't be any such thing as a last word in something as ever-changing as human society. As a socialist in 2008, I'm not about to limit my options by saying that the proletariat is the only group that can ever feel the need for socialism strongly enough to lead a revolution. I think that is un-Marxist in the truest sense of the word. Things can change: the WC can be bought off in some countries, other groups can become revolutionary (think African-Americans in the sixties), and so on. I'm not saying that working class revolution is no longer possible--clearly not. Under the right circumstances (not those that exist right now) I am positive it would happen. But in the meantime, to deny that any other path to socialism could ever exist strikes me as silly. More importantly, it denies reality. Peasants have played the biggest part in several socialist revolutions.


The bottom line of the last three points is probably this: no matter how brilliant and useful Marxism is, and I agree that it is both, it still exists to serve socialists and not the other way around. I don't favor idle theorizing on the part of people who are nowhere near in the same league as Marx (Bookchin comes to mind, as do Hardt & Negri). But when a people actually finds an alternative path to socialism, as has been done in places like Cuba, it would be absolutely crazy to deny their achievements. Marx himself certainly would not. And I think that breaking from the Soviet Union may have conditioned Trots into the mindset that they can reject all examples of real-world socialism on the flimsiest of grounds. Were they justified to break from Stalin? Probably, since Stalin was an extreme case of perverted socialism. But after they made that split it became altogether too easy for them to reject every real world socialist victory that did not conform closely enough to some idealist version of a worker-led revolution. Sometimes it feels like they are Marxists first and socialists second.

My $.02.

[Leo]

It's not contradictory to say most, but not all, anti-imperialist struggles benefit this or that imperialist power, which is what I believe he was trying to say.

Sure, then he should have said something like "the Luxemburgist conception that all national liberation struggles must end up serving the aims of some imperialist power is a 87% true and 13% false".


Russia!

When in Russia?

[KC]

Sure, then he should have said something like "the Luxemburgist conception that all national liberation struggles must end up serving the aims of some imperialist power is a 87% true and 13% false".

No, the Luxemburgist conception is that all anti-imperialist struggles benefit this or that imperialist power. That is 100% false.


When in Russia?

1917.

[Leo]

Anyway, is there any examples of "anti-imperialist" struggles not benefiting this or that imperialist power?Russia! When in Russia?1917. The October revolution was completely opposed to imperialism, as it was in itself a product of the internationalist opposition of the world proletariat to the imperialist war. Obviously a genuinely proletarian movement has to be opposed to all imperialist powers.

But come on, the October revolution has nothing to do with any "anti-imperialist" movement as we have known them for the last century.


Sure, then he should have said something like "the Luxemburgist conception that all national liberation struggles must end up serving the aims of some imperialist power is a 87% true and 13% false".
No, the Luxemburgist conception is that all anti-imperialist struggles benefit this or that imperialist power. That is 100% false.Clearly, there is a clash between statistical and semantical logic here.

[Devrim]

No, the Luxemburgist conception is that all anti-imperialist struggles benefit this or that imperialist power. That is 100% false.

Actually, it is that national liberation struggles tend to benefit this or that imperialist power, which is true.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

And Lenin answered that as long as there's no revolution, everything 'tends' to end up serving imperialism. That is not enough to say that there is no basis to support national liberation struggles when they serve the cause of revolution.

[Sprinkles]

That is not enough to say that there is no basis to support national liberation struggles when they serve the cause of revolution.


Doesn't that beg the question what exactly national liberation struggles could offer the revolution. If the revolution is presumed to be made by the working class and considering that the proletariat at its core is international and nationalism itself is only a tool of the bourgeoisie to not only try to divide it, but to obscure it's class consciousness as well.

National liberation comes down to saying hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.

Edit: Voted Neutral

[Yehuda Stern]

The basis of the argument is that blows to imperialism strengthen the consciousness of workers both in the imperialist country and in the oppressed country. Of course, these struggles are a means and not an end in itself to Marxists. Trotsky put it quite well:


In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

[TheRedRevolutionary]

I have to vote no. Non Marxist, Menshevik, betrayed the workers state by attacking it when it faced the mortal threat of Nazi barbarism. And his legacy is a thousand tiny sects where middle class kids in rich countries talk about how bad Stalin was.

[Q]

I have to vote no. Non Marxist, Menshevik, betrayed the workers state by attacking it when it faced the mortal threat of Nazi barbarism. And his legacy is a thousand tiny sects where middle class kids in rich countries talk about how bad Stalin was.

Who exactly do you think you'll convince with your nonsense flaming? You're really only ridiculising yourself.

[black magick hustla]

The basis of the argument is that blows to imperialism strengthen the consciousness of workers both in the imperialist country and in the oppressed country. Of course, these struggles are a means and not an end in itself to Marxists. Trotsky put it quite well:

I think this has been disproved by history. I think that national liberation tends to detourn consciousness around the concept of nations and a world divided by nations. Every time the ideas of national liberation become dominant, real communists end up against the wall in one way or the other. Like when the KMT liquidated the communists in Shanghai and Mao applauded it. Either that, or thousands (or even millions) die in the name of the nation, and much worse, their death is in vain because national liberalation has never, ever, facilitated class consciousness. In the contrary, it strenghtens the notions of national identity, and makes it easier for the new ruling class to call workers for the defense of the state.

It is true that trotsky and lenin didnt support national liberation out of principle, but strategy. However, they were wrong, and millions have paid with their blood.

[black magick hustla]

I have to vote no. Non Marxist, Menshevik, betrayed the workers state by attacking it when it faced the mortal threat of Nazi barbarism. And his legacy is a thousand tiny sects where middle class kids in rich countries talk about how bad Stalin was.

you'd be surprised how many groups in the third world attack stalin.

[Lenin's Law]

Who exactly do you think you'll convince with your nonsense flaming?

Actually we may be the ones who need to do some convincing...a majority of RevLefters have a negative/neutral opinion of Trotsky. :(

[NickHs]

Definitely negative. He was totally reactionary. How can you support a coup d'etat in the USSR when the country is about to enter the anti-fascist war?

[Revy]

I answered, "positive", though I've not always seen him in a positive light, as some here on RevLeft who know me from other websites can attest.

I'm neutral on Lenin, and very negative on Stalin.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Trotsky was no traitor, as he never actually was a Communist.
He was a counterrevolutionary bourgeois element.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Indeed, even Lenin said he was the most conciliatory, opportunist and revisionist member of the party, and even when the whole party wanted to get rid of him spreading disunity he called for the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat under an anti-bureaucratic platform which was undoubtedly aimed at putting Trotsky into power.
Trotsky even called for a coup at the time the nazi tanks were gathering on the borders.
Trotsky only joined the party in 1917, when it was becoming clear the Bolsheviks would succeed in the Revolution. He had bee, a manshevik before. He was nothing more than an opportunist.

[hugsandmarxism]

I'm not well studied enough on Trotsky to make an informed argument. Neutral.

[Hit The North]

Trotsky was no traitor, as he never actually was a Communist.
He was a counterrevolutionary bourgeois element.

I can't even be bothered to yawn.

[Sam_b]

Trotsky only joined the party in 1917, when it was becoming clear the Bolsheviks would succeed in the Revolution. He had bee, a manshevik before. He was nothing more than an opportunist.

But years before that he was close to Lenin in the Iskra group, and only took sides when there was an ideological split in the camp. Lenin still spoke highly of him, however, and this explains his rapid rise up the ranks of the Bolsheviks after he joined in 1917.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

But years before that he was close to Lenin in the Iskra group, and only took sides when there was an ideological split in the camp. Lenin still spoke highly of him, however, and this explains his rapid rise up the ranks of the Bolsheviks after he joined in 1917.
Lenin has often said bad things of Trotsky. He didn't really trust him, but Trotsky was a good speaker and pretty intelligent too.

[Sam_b]

Lenin has often said bad things of Trotsky. He didn't really trust him

Oh absolutely, the 'renegade' Trotsky springs to mind.

I still however think its unfair to call Trotsky an opportunist, its very selecive in the use of facts. It still remains that Lenin and Trotsky agreed on many things and that Trotsky wasn't the only Menshevik to be won over by the happenings of 1917.

[Led Zeppelin]

I still however think its unfair to call Trotsky an opportunist, its very selecive in the use of facts. It still remains that Lenin and Trotsky agreed on many things and that Trotsky wasn't the only Menshevik to be won over by the happenings of 1917.

Erm, Trotsky wasn't a Menshevik since 1904.

[Tower of Bebel]

The use of "Menshevik" also depends on the definition. Sometimes it is used in the way many anarchists use the word "fascist" or "leninist".

[Knight of Cydonia]

a simple Negative

[Sam_b]

Erm, Trotsky wasn't a Menshevik since 1904.

Thats true, actually.

:laugh:

[Kibbutznik]

Overall, I'm fairly ambivalent to Trotsky the historical figure.

I was once a Trotskyist in the vein of Max Shactman, but I left Trotskyism for a number of reasons, most notably my concern over a historically revisionist myth of Trotsky. I simply couldn't maintain the label knowing that Trotsky did not deserve the lionization he has recieved among Western Marxists.

I share a similar opinion of Trotsky as I do with Lenin. He made important contributions to Marxist theory, but at the same time as a statesmen in the early USSR, he was responsible for subverting many of the original goals that he once held dear.

[Revolutionary-Socialist]

Trotsky was a revolutionary and one of the few who dared to oppose Stalinism. He died for his dedication to Marxism and for that he has earned my respect.

[Louis Pio]

The use of "Menshevik" also depends on the definition.

Indeed the whole use of that label without explanation is pretty boring. Trotsky sided with the menshevics back when they hadn't evoveled has a reformist political trend, actually the official reasons for the split between bolshevics and menshevics were somewhat minor than the political differences that surfaced later and as correctly stated Trotsky broke with them as early as 1904 when he started to see these differences.
Now a funny thing is that alot of the people who like to label Trotsky as a menshevic is the same people who seem to idolize Stalin, the same Stalin who shared alot of views with the menshevics in many regards. The best known example is probably his and other leading bolshevics politics in 1917, were they argued for supporting a cadet goverment, when Lenin returned he of course vocally flabbergasted the people in charge of that policy and to their horrors put forward the April theses.
Another example is later when the communist party and the comintern adopted the menshevic 2 stage theory and in the process sold alot of foreign communist parties out.
Of course this is abc for any marxist as it is abc to look at the political backgrounds for this or that label instead of just throwing it around with nitpicked quotes out of context as "prof".