What would the USSR be like if Trotsky ruled it?

[Unicorn]

What were the differences between Trotsky and Stalin on economic and foreign policy? How would this change in history impact the Great Patriotic War?

[Gitfiddle Jim]

The USSR would be much bigger I'm guessing, with Trotsky's call for worldwide revolution. Stalin's policy of "Socialism in one country" sought to put an end to Trotskyist ideas.

[Dimentio]

It would have been more focused on intellectualism and modern arts than if Stalin had ruled it, but it is hard to tell the constellations of power. As of socialism in one country, I think Trotsky would have followed that policy, as he did after the peace with Poland. If he had opted for a world-wide revolution without compromise, the USSR would have turned out much smaller.

[More Fire for the People]

I think things would have gone better, but I don’t think Trotsky had the caliber to go beyond the early moderation in the revolution. What the post-Civil War Soviet Union needed was a mass of leaders sharing qualities with Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Mao and a loyal group of dissenters like Pannekoek, Mattick, and Durruti.

[Holden Caulfield]

well Spain would have fallen, China will have been closer to Russia, then due to this fascism wouldnt have risen to the heights it did,

etc etc one hour later we have utopia

[More Fire for the People]

well Spain would have fallen, China will have been closer to Russia, then due to this fascism wouldnt have risen to the heights it did,

etc etc one hour later we have utopia
:lol: Yes, all because of Trotsky:laugh:

[Dimentio]

I think things would have gone better, but I don’t think Trotsky had the caliber to go beyond the early moderation in the revolution. What the post-Civil War Soviet Union needed was a mass of leaders sharing qualities with Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, and Mao and a loyal group of dissenters like Pannekoek, Mattick, and Durruti.

I think it would have needed a system where no individual leader or faction would have determined the fate of the entire union.

[Holden Caulfield]

:lol: Yes, all because of Trotsky:laugh:

that was intended as a tad of sarcasm,

[Devrim]

Pretty much the same really.

Devrim

[Bilan]

The revolution betrayed would have had a different author.

[Random Precision]

Merely substituting Trotsky for Stalin wouldn't change much- history is not created by "great men". The only way things could have gone well for the USSR would have been for the revolution to spread outside of Russia- to Germany first, followed by the nations of western Europe.

Given the same international situation, it might be the case that his leadership would have been more humane in the collectivization process. I don't know what effect it would have had on the Comintern during the thirties, but if his leadership managed to hold out against the bureaucratic deformations (rather unlikely imo) we might not have ended up with the Nazis at all, as he would have encouraged a United Front strategy to combat fascism. Thus, perhaps no WW2.

But this would be all heavily dependent on the international revolution. Its failure was the reason for the Russian Revolution's isolation. Thus the bureaucratic deformations, thus Stalin's rise to power.

[Devrim]

I don't know what effect it would have had on the Comintern during the thirties, but if his leadership managed to hold out against the bureaucratic deformations (rather unlikely imo) we might not have ended up with the Nazis at all, as he would have encouraged a United Front strategy to combat fascism.

He would have been as tied to defending the interests of the Russian state as Stalin was.

Devrim

[Random Precision]

He would have been as tied to defending the interests of the Russian state as Stalin was.

Devrim

You're probably right. I didn't think that part through very well.

[Dros]

The USSR would be much bigger I'm guessing, with Trotsky's call for worldwide revolution. Stalin's policy of "Socialism in one country" sought to put an end to Trotskyist ideas.

That's really not what you think it is.

Socialism in one country is the argument (opposed to Trotskyism) not that world revolution is not important but that it is possible for the USSR to exist as a socialist country and that it is important to build socialism in the USSR even in the face of defeated revolutions throughout Europe (especially in Germany).

I don't think all that much would have been different. Trotsky would probably have erred in similar wasy with the ultimate result of a revisionist coup being the same.

[Unicorn]

Would Trotsky make a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany like Stalin?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, for different reasons I do think the USSR would have been better off with the revisionist Trotsky (instead of the more revisionist Stalin):

1) First and foremost, he would have gone past Stalin's collectivization compromise. This "artel" compromise led to the widespread famine, which actually didn't affect areas undergoing sovkhozization (turning arable land into state-owned land for proper state farms). I know this would break Lenin's worker-peasant alliance, but the foreign Depression shut down the foreign heavy manufacturing that was key for the Soviets to import technology:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/646/russia.htm

2) The idiotic purges of the military corps would not have occurred (the Nazis played on Stalin's fears and framed Tukachevsky).

3) There needed to be a ruling tendency and a "loyal opposition" tendency, instead of Stalin's revisionist "unity in thought and action." Since Trotsky was quite "sectarian" on a personal level, there's no doubt that factions would have re-emerged.

4) The United Front strategy could have delayed Hitler a bit longer, at least long enough for the Nazis not to make an impact on the Spanish Civil War.



The only negative in all of this (theory notwithstanding) is that the resulting regime would have been more bureaucratic than Stalin's, precisely because of Trotsky's "ultra-rapid" industrialization calls (and no, a directly-democratic planned economy with the limited communication technology back then could not have mustered resources as fast as "Stalinized" bureaucracy).

[Unicorn]

Did Trotsky want to use the Red Army to invade capitalist countries and liberate the workers? Would he start the Winter War, for example?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If he did, the Soviet military would have been in a much better position (already with tanks, if Trotsky went ahead with those), with competent, deep-operations folks like Tukachevsky and Zhukov. Idiots like Budyonny (a true-to-form Stalin cronie who wasn't purged in spite of his initial bunglings against the Nazis) and Voroshilov (a bungler to a lesser extent) would most certainly have been retired.

[Awful Reality]

Spain would have gone socialist.
So would Germany.
China would have much faster.

Stronger military.
Khrushchevite/Brehznevite capitalism never would have existed.
USSR would still exist.

[Socialistpenguin]

Just to back up Random Precision's point really, though I do think Jacob maybe onto something.

If Trotsky replaced Stalin is leader, I don't think much would have been different, other than one or two details of government: as said before, history is not changed solely by "the great men", but via social movements. It should not bee the case to merely support the exchanging of the figurehead of Stalin with the figurehead of Trotsky: it would've been better all around if the working class and the peasantry took a much more decisive and democratic role within the USSR, rather than proposing Stalin be replaced by someone else.

In any event, we honestly don't know how people will govern once in power. In the end, this is "what if?" history, and unfortunately, is somewhat futile. (Just thought I'd bring the discussion into context ;) :lol:)

[Unicorn]

So would Germany.
Can I ask how? Would communists take over the country in the 1930s and there would be no Hitler? Or would whole Germany become socialist after WWII? (It was a mistake to divide it with capitalists)

[Devrim]

Spain would have gone socialist.
So would Germany.
China would have much faster.

Stronger military.
Khrushchevite/Brehznevite capitalism never would have existed.
USSR would still exist.

This is complete idealism. Trotskyism holds that the Russian revolution lost because it was isolated. By Lenin's death in 1924, the revolutionary wave had ebbed, and putting Trotsky in the Kremlin wouldn't have turned the tide.

On could construct a more sophisticated argument that said for Trotsky to have won the working class would have had to have been stronger, but then the things that you talk about would have happened as a result of the working class being stronger, not as a result of Trotsky being in the Kremlin.

The Trotskyists are in agreement with the communist left that the revolution couldn't survive in isolation.

It wouldn't have mattered who was at its head it wouldn't of survived.

The above post displays exactly the same kind of 'cult of the personality' which would have become necessary for Trotskyism had it taken state power in the USSR.

Devrim

[rebelworker]

Well I think the structure of the party/state and the decisions of the leadership clearly had some impacts on the direction of history(otherwise everything else Bolsheviks say about the importance of the party and leadership would be total bullshit, thus no need for revolutionary organisation).

As for the real differences I think its pretty clear that the decline of working class power is at least in some part due to the direction taken by the Bolshevik burocracy.

Torotsky was a major proponent of militarisation of labour and one man management, so clearly things wouldnt have gone better for the russian labouring classes.

Now he probably wasnt as bat shit crazy as Stalin, but he did on occasion replace competent local leadership when it opposed his vision or worldview, so i think it is fair tyo say that there still would have been a good level of missmanagement as well.

Outside of that, his internationalist leanings certainly would have had some positive effects compared to Stalin, but Im sure his extreem centralist tendancies would have made soviet foreign policy during the spanish civil war very similar, there is no way such an ardent anarchist hater would have allowed weapons to be given to the majority libertairan militias in Spain.

But again, all this is just speculation and it is true that economic and political/structural conditions would have greatly dictated policy more than personality over the long run.

[Comrade Hector]

What were the differences between Trotsky and Stalin on economic and foreign policy? How would this change in history impact the Great Patriotic War?

The Cold War would've been between a capitalist North America and a Red workers Europe.

[Crest]

Uhh, let's see... Gee, this is hard.

1. The USSR would've been much, much larger.
2. The people would've had a few, basic rights.
3. Freedom of press, much?
4. Ruling would be democratic, instead of practically dictatorial
5. Et cetera, et cetera

[ComradeOm]

^^^ If he did, the Soviet military would have been in a much better position (already with tanks, if Trotsky went ahead with those), with competent, deep-operations folks like Tukachevsky and Zhukov. Idiots like Budyonny (a true-to-form Stalin cronie who wasn't purged in spite of his initial bunglings against the Nazis) and Voroshilov (a bungler to a lesser extent) would most certainly have been retired.I disagree. Obviously the purges and incompetence of '41 could have been avoided but by and large the Soviet Army was in a good position by the time WWII arrived*. Stalin had put the brakes on the revolutionary new ideas being tested in the late thirties but even then the army was operating from a very solid doctrinal foundation. I don't see how Trotsky would have accelerated this

*Except for the fact that it was in the middle of a major reorganisation due to these very reforms

[Unicorn]

If Stalin was in exile would he be able to establish an internationally influential Marxist current? :D

[Devrim]

Outside of that, his internationalist leanings certainly would have had some positive effects compared to Stalin, but Im sure his extreem centralist tendancies would have made soviet foreign policy during the spanish civil war very similar, there is no way such an ardent anarchist hater would have allowed weapons to be given to the majority libertairan militias in Spain.

I don't think that the policy of the Soviet state in Spain had anything to do with hating anarchists, and I don't think Trotsky's policy would have either.

It had every thing to do with Russian imperialist policy, and stopping workers revolution.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagree. Obviously the purges and incompetence of '41 could have been avoided but by and large the Soviet Army was in a good position by the time WWII arrived*. Stalin had put the brakes on the revolutionary new ideas being tested in the late thirties but even then the army was operating from a very solid doctrinal foundation. I don't see how Trotsky would have accelerated this

*Except for the fact that it was in the middle of a major reorganisation due to these very reforms

I stand corrected. :) On the other hand, what about Budyonny's and Voroshilov's insistence on the usage of cavalry, a doctrinally outdated position? :confused:

[ComradeOm]

On the other hand, what about Budyonny's and Voroshilov's insistence on the usage of cavalry, a doctrinally outdated position? :confused:Incompetent commanders clearly cost the USSR greatly in the first year of the German invasion. That is surely not in doubt. However once the deadwood had been cleared, out of sheer necessity, we see that the next generation of Soviet commanders were sharp, capable, and operating from a very modern doctrinal platform. This was born of the Russian Civil War and stressed the importance of mobile mechanised formations penetrating enemy lines with heavy artillery and aerial support. Wikipedia actually has a good page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army%27s_tactics_in_World_War_II) on it

By the late thirties Tukhachevsky et al had effectively put together an operational doctrine the equal, or superior, to that of the Wehrmacht. (There were also a host of practical problems with actually implementing these reforms) The purges and crony appointments were obviously detrimental but the doctrines survived and, through the next generation of commanders, were used as the foundation for such stunning operations as Bagration, Vistula-Oder, and August Storm

So, to pull us back to the original point, while Stalin can take the blame for his appointments and handling of the early war, his reign also saw the development of a revolutionary new organisational doctrine. There's no reason why this would have occured sooner, or to a greater extent, under Trotsky

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about the Winter War blunders of Voroshilov? I suppose that the surfacing of the development of the "deep operations" doctrine would have occurred faster under Trotsky, but you're right in terms of the development itself. Sorry for my confusion of the terms "surfacing" and "development" here.

In the Stalin thread, I also said that Stalin did play a key positive role in WWII later on, sometimes restraining his generals from making overly ambitious attacks.

[ComradeOm]

^^^ What about the Winter War blunders of Voroshilov? I suppose that the surfacing of the development of the "deep operations" doctrine would have occurred faster under Trotsky, but you're right in terms of the development itself. Sorry for my confusion of the terms "surfacing" and "development" hereDon't confuse bad leadership with bad doctrine. IIRC the advances/theories of Tukhachevsky et al became official doctrine in '36 and remained so until the end of the war. Obviously there were a host of practical challenges to overcome but the pre-war years produced both a very modern doctrinal foundation and a host of excellent commanders capable of carrying it out

Where Stalin takes the blame is for installing incompetent generals following the purges. But even in Finland or in '41 the basic operational art of the Red Army remained sound. So Trotsky probably would have avoided some of the disasters of '41 (simply by having the right men in the right place) but his presence would not have transformed the Red Army

Of course the post-war period is an entirely different matter entirely and Stalin's presence effectively halted any further development of Soviet doctrine until 1953

[nvm]

Well Trotsky was against this bureaucracy "caste" which was composed by 10%-15% of the population, which was developed by Stalin . And these bureaucrats found it to their interest to sell out the USSR to serve their interests. The proof of this? Look who compose the richest people and the most powerful people in Russia. Former bureaucrats, KGB agents etc etc.
I think there would be more democracy and power would go from bottom to top instead of bureaucrats apointing officials (top to bottom).
Also if the Left opposition's plan for collectivization was carried from 1923 instead of Stalin enforcing it with the Red Army in 1928 then the millions of deaths during the period of 1929-1933 would have been avoided.
Also don't foget that it was trotsky who led the Red Army to victory against the Whites and the International Army of the imperialists.. And Stalin replaced or killed many army officials during the period of the great purges. So Hitler would have been combated more effectively if Trotsky was in power.
Also Trotsky would have supported the International revolutions and the Soviet Union would not have played this shameful role in Spain.
I am not saying that the soviet union would have CERTAINLY be a utopia and a magical world under Trotsky but we would have better chances of seeing socialism or even communism at this date.
It is a shame that there are still people who advocate the methods of Stalin and still support his ideas even though we saw such a miserable failure of his tactics through history.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm not so optimistic as other users here. Stalin and the subsequent adoption of his policies by the Soviet congress probably provided a means for the Soviet Union to meet the Nazi threat that Trotsky's policies could not match. There is no evidence that continuing the NEP could have brought the same results as rapid collectivization; indeed it's highly unlikely based on the fact Soviet industrialization remains unmatched.


I think there would be more democracy and power would go from bottom to top instead of bureaucrats apointing officials (top to bottom).

If recent evidence from hidden Soviet achieves is to believed, Stalin actually called for democratic reform. I'm very hesitant to adopt the bourgeoisie perspective on Stalin considering the lack of attributed sources and outright nonsense.


It is a shame that there are still people who advocate the methods of Stalin and still support his ideas even though we saw such a miserable failure of his tactics through history.

You're confusing the perception of Stalin. You took the Western perspective that Stalin was a dictator, madman, crazed with power. Advocates for Stalin do not believe Robert Conquest and claim he was working with what he could, did not purposely kill people beyond anti-revolutionaries, and was actually a democrat. I side with the latter crowd on most cases.

[ComradeOm]

I'm not so optimistic as other users here. Stalin and the subsequent adoption of his policies by the Soviet congress probably provided a means for the Soviet Union to meet the Nazi threat that Trotsky's policies could not match. There is no evidence that continuing the NEP could have brought the same results as rapid collectivization; indeed it's highly unlikely based on the fact Soviet industrialization remains unmatched.:confused:

Until his expulsion from the Party it had been Trotsky who called for the abandonment of the NEP in favour of a more rapid programme of industrialisation. In this he was opposed by both Bukharin and Stalin