What's the difference between Stalinists and Troskyists?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Just curious. Is it just that trotsky would try and conquer the world ffor communism, or there are real ideological differences?

[RHIZOMES]

They uphold different dead historical figures.

[AnthArmo]

ohhhhhhh boy, here comes the shitstorm, I'd better settle this before it gets out of hand

Stalinist's are what we've seen in Communist regimes in the history. Things such as a Totalitarian dictatorship, harsh treatment of political dissidents, lack of democracy, a Command Economy with work Quotas etc etc etc. Think North Korea and you get the idea.

Trotskyists oppose this. They support Democracy throught the Soviet model that Lenin tried to implement and generally support workers control and liberalisation, I belive it was Trotsky that stated that "Socialism needs Democracy like the Human body needs oxygen".

Stalin wanted to support an idea of Socialism in one country. This basically means that a socialist country tries to build up it's own economy before trying to spread the revolution one country at a time.

Trotskyists favour an international revolution instead, by trying to spread it to other countries immedeatly after a revolution within your own borders.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Internationalism vs. "socialism in one country"

That's probably the most significant aspect where they differ, as far as I know.

[ZeroNowhere]

One tries to justify the Kronstadt massacre, the other tries to justify the purges.

[politics student]

ohhhhhhh boy, here comes the shitstorm, I'd better settle this before it gets out of hand

Stalinist's are what we've seen in Communist regimes in the history. Things such as a Totalitarian dictatorship, harsh treatment of political dissidents, lack of democracy, a Command Economy with work Quotas etc etc etc. Think North Korea and you get the idea.

Trotskyists oppose this. They support Democracy throught the Soviet model that Lenin tried to implement and generally support workers control and liberalisation, I belive it was Trotsky that stated that "Socialism needs Democracy like the Human body needs oxygen".


Agreed. I would also argue that "stalinist" is slightly over used mainly against leninist and maoists.

I rather like the Cuban democratic system.


Stalin wanted to support an idea of Socialism in one country. This basically means that a socialist country tries to build up it's own economy before trying to spread the revolution one country at a time.

Trotskyists favour an international revolution instead, by trying to spread it to other countries immedeatly after a revolution within your own borders.
Don't both these ideas hold value?

[Cult of Reason]

The Trotskyists lost.

That is the most important difference.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't both these ideas hold value?

No, "socialism in one country" has proven itself to be a disaster, in my opinion.

[Incendiarism]

trotskyists print newspapers and stalinists eat children.

[danyboy27]

trhere is no differences, both dont have any sense of humor.

[RGacky3]

The real question is who cares, both are irrelivent, its like asking the difference between Supporters of Octavian and Mark Anthony, its that relivant.

[Led Zeppelin]

The Trotskyists lost.

That is the most important difference.

I'm not sure what the point of this was? Are you trying to ridicule Trotskyism? If so, I wouldn't throw rocks from your anarcho-technocratic glass-house, dude.

Anyway, it has already been said, the most important differences were permanent revolution versus socialism in one country, and democracy versus dictatorship.

However, if you want to reduce it to one basic thing; Trotskyists always knew that the USSR could never build socialism by itself and would inevitably collapse if the revolution would not spread. Stalinists didn't.

Which has history proven right? Well, that's for you to tell.


The real question is who cares, both are irrelivent, its like asking the difference between Supporters of Octavian and Mark Anthony, its that relivant.

Those are some mighty big words coming from someone who's the epitome of irrelevancy.

[BobKKKindle$]

When Trotskyists use the term "Stalinism" we are referring to the system of government and mode of social organization which existed in Russia under the rule of Stalin and his successors, and was later applied in other countries in Eastern Europe which were occupied by the Soviet Union during the later stages of WW2. Stalinism is characterized by the centralization of control in the hands of an individual or a small group who occupy positions of power within the upper reaches of the party apparatus or the state, a lack of democratic control over the means of production, an unequal distribution of resources whereby members of the bureaucracy have access to goods and resources which are forcibly denied to the working population, and a foreign policy which seeks to protect the interests of the ruling bureaucracy instead of supporting the international struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

Trotskyists argue that the revolution in Russia was isolated from the rest of the word as the revolution failed to spread to other more advanced capitalist states which would have been able to provide Russia with resources and stop Russia from becoming encircled and attacked by the imperialist powers, and it was this isolation that led to the emergence of a bureaucracy which gradually gained a monopoly on political power by expelling members of the democratic opposition (including Trotsky) and restricting civil liberties. By placing emphasis on the role of isolation, Trotskyists recognize that if a revolution breaks out in an underdeveloped country it must immediately seek to become an international revolution by giving all available support to movements fighting in other countries around the world. Trotskyists acknowledge that the preconditions for socialism have only been established on an international scale and so it will never be possible to realize socialism within the borders of one country, as trade and other transactions such as investment flows bind countries together and make them economically dependent on each other.

These are important differences, but Trotskyists and "Stalinists" should still try to work together in pursuit of common goals - there are many "Stalinists" who are committed revolutionaries and it would be unfortunate to exclude them on the grounds that they have some mistaken ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you trying to ridicule Trotskyism?

I don't know his point, but some Trotsky meat 101 thrown into the OI cage every now and then might not hurt. A bit of "Trotsky believed X, Y and Z and here's why..." could help a lot.

If we could turn OI from a "you're and asshole" (from both sides) sessions to "I think, you're mistaken, let's discuss this a bit" it might be more interesting and more informative from all points of view.

And yea, it's over and over and over again. That's how understand grows.

And oh:


When Trotskyists use the term "Stalinism" we are are referring to the system of government and mode of social organization which existed in Russia under the rule of Stalin and his successors, and was later applied in other countries in Eastern Europe which were occupied by the Soviet Union during the later stages of WW2. Stalinism is characterized by the centralization of power in the hands of an individual or a small group who occupy positions of power within the upper reaches of the party apparatus or the state, a lack of democratic control over the means of production, an unequal distribution of resources whereby members of the bureaucracy have access to goods and resources which are denied to the working population, and a foreign policy which seeks to protect the interests of the ruling bureaucracy instead of supporting the international struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

Trotskyists argue that the revolution in Russia was isolated from the rest of the word as the revolution failed to spread to other more advanced capitalist states which would have been able to provide Russia with resources and stop Russia from becoming encircled and attacked by the imperialist powers, and it was this isolation that led to the emergence of a bureaucracy which gradually gained a monopoly on political power by expelling members of the democratic opposition (including Trotsky) and restricting civil liberties. By placing emphasis on the role of isolation, Trotskyists recognize that if a revolution breaks out in an underdeveloped country it must immediately seek to become an international revolution by giving all available support to movements fighting in other countries around the world. Trotskyists acknowledge that the preconditions for socialism have only been established on an international scale and so it will never be possible to realize socialism within the borders of one country, as trade and other transactions such as investment flows bind countries together and make them economically dependent on each other.

These are important differences, but Trotskyists and "Stalinists" should still try to work together in pursuit of common goals - there are many "Stalinists" who are committed revolutionaries and it would be unfortunate to exclude them on the grounds that they have some mistaken ideas.

Good example.:)

[BobKKKindle$]

Smarmy and condescending doesn't work.

Excuse me? Explain?

[Bud Struggle]

Excuse me? Explain?

Sorry, I reread and changed my point. My mistake. (FYI: I changed my opinion before I read your reply.) It was a good answer you gave.

[RedScare]

The defeat if Trotsky is probably what doomed communism in the 20th century, right up there with the failure of the German Revolution.

[Holden Caulfield]

What's the difference between Stalinists and Troskyists?

the Stalinists won

[RGacky3]

The defeat if Trotsky is probably what doomed communism in the 20th century, right up there with the failure of the German Revolution.


Communism was dead before that, when Lenin and the Bolshevik Party leadership assumed full control of the soviets, when Lenin centralized the power in the name of saving the revolution he killed it, the power never was given back.

Although this is just hypothetical, if Trosky had won I dont' think the USSR would have lasted, because Trosky would have encouraged much more extenstive suport of third world revolution the Western backlash would have been much harsher. That being said I do think Trosky was more dedicated and honestly wanted Socialism, whereas Stalin was more of a parenoid power junky.

Had the Bolsheviks never centralized power, and had the Soviets held on to their independance and kept if worker controlled rather than party control, the History of the USSR would have been much different, and it would have been a revolution that we can be proud of, like the Spanish revolution was.

But I'd hope by now people can let Lenin, Stalin and Trosky go, because the Russian Revolution did not achieve communism or genuine socialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

when Lenin and the Bolshevik Party leadership assumed full control of the soviets

The Bolsheviks did not just "capture" the Soviets, they were voted in by the workers, and the Bolsheviks only launched the insurrection once they had attained a majority in all of the major urban Soviets, and so what you're basically saying is that communism "died" when the Russian proletariat decided that the Bolsheviks were the only party who were committed to ending the war and carrying out a socialist revolution against the power of the landowners and the urban bourgeoisie.

In other words, you're accusing the workers of having made the "wrong" decision, which makes you a reactionary, and an enemy of the working class.

[RGacky3]

The Bolsheviks did not just "capture" the Soviets, they were voted in by the workers, and the Bolsheviks only launched the insurrection once they had attained a majority in all of the major urban Soviets, and so what you're basically saying is that communism "died" when the Russian proletariat decided that the Bolsheviks were the only party who were committed to ending the war and carrying out a socialist revolution against the power of the landowners and the urban bourgeoisie.

In other words, you're accusing the workers of having made the "wrong" decision, which makes you a reactionary, and an enemy of the working class.

Elected is a stretch of the word, strong armed, violently attacked other parties, physically took over soviets that did'nt vote them in, and once in control essencially made electing a ritualistic act. The workers did'nt make a wrong decision, the bolsheiks lied to the workers, and destroyed those that saw through their lies. "All power to the soviets" was their battle cry, and they did'nt do that.

BTW, notice how quickly a Leninist labels one as a reactionary and enemy of the working class, thats one of the scariest aspects of Leninists.

The Bolsheviks betrayed the workers trust, the workers wanted change and they trusted that the Bolsheviks would give Russia over to them, they lied, they gave Russia to the Bolsheviks and trampled anyone that resisted.

[Plagueround]

the Stalinists won

I wasn't aware we judged history solely by who won. It's like you've given the OI a 2 meter wide unprotected exhaust port to fire a proton torpedo down and destroy the entire station.

[RedKnight]

A trotskyist was one who sided with the "Left Opposition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Opposition to Josef Stalin. And just to really shake things up, I will mention that there was also a "Right Opposition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Opposition, based around Nikolai Bukharin. This is the tendency that I most identify with. And now I'll probally be despised by trotskyists and stalinists alike. :lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I wasn't aware we judged history solely by who won. It's like you've given the OI a 2 meter wide unprotected exhaust port to fire a proton torpedo down and destroy the entire station.

That's the first thing I thought.

But that's what seems to be the common denominator, between these two ideologies and a lot of other revolutionary theories, that the end will justify the means...one day.

More on this subject in a sec

[RebelDog]

The Bolsheviks did not just "capture" the Soviets, they were voted in by the workers, and the Bolsheviks only launched the insurrection once they had attained a majority in all of the major urban Soviets, and so what you're basically saying is that communism "died" when the Russian proletariat decided that the Bolsheviks were the only party who were committed to ending the war and carrying out a socialist revolution against the power of the landowners and the urban bourgeoisie.

In other words, you're accusing the workers of having made the "wrong" decision, which makes you a reactionary, and an enemy of the working class.

That is as sanitized a view of the Bolsheviks as I think I have ever heard. I suppose its typical of someone who adores the Bolsheviks so much to accuse others of being "reactionary" and "an enemy of the working-class" because the do not fall behind a ridiculous view of history. You would have excelled in the Cheka.

[Sasha]

Elected is a stretch of the word, strong armed, violently attacked other parties, physically took over soviets that did'nt vote them in, and once in control essencially made electing a ritualistic act. The workers did'nt make a wrong decision, the bolsheiks lied to the workers, and destroyed those that saw through their lies. "All power to the soviets" was their battle cry, and they did'nt do that.

BTW, notice how quickly a Leninist labels one as a reactionary and enemy of the working class, thats one of the scariest aspects of Leninists.

The Bolsheviks betrayed the workers trust, the workers wanted change and they trusted that the Bolsheviks would give Russia over to them, they lied, they gave Russia to the Bolsheviks and trampled anyone that resisted.

its not often i agree 100% with an restricted poster but you nailded it there.... nothing to ad.
so what he said...

[Jazzratt]

Trotsky was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent during the revolution, Stalin was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent after it.

[danyboy27]

Trotsky was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent during the revolution, Stalin was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent after it.


soo true :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[GPDP]

Trotsky was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent during the revolution, Stalin was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent after it.

/thread

[Bud Struggle]

FYI: This is what Communism looks like when translated into the real world. It's time to take what's "good" in Marxism and combine it with other "good" things from other economic philosophies and create a new world.

Take Marx as an ideology and you are a Reactionary. Take him as a valuable stepping stone and you are truly a Revolutionary. Take Marx as an "end" and all you have is another freakin' religion.

[GPDP]

That's kinda what anarchism is. :)

[Herman]

In other words, you're accusing the workers of having made the "wrong" decision, which makes you a reactionary, and an enemy of the working class.I couldn't have said it better.

As much as I can sympathize with some of the ideas and beliefs from the left SRs and international mensheviks, eventually they were voted out from the Soviets.


Elected is a stretch of the word, strong armed, violently attacked other parties, physically took over soviets that did'nt vote them in, and once in control essencially made electing a ritualistic act.

"Violently attacked soviets"? Where are you getting your sources from?


Trotsky was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent during the revolution, Stalin was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent after it.Heh, that made me giggle.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Elected is a stretch of the word, strong armed, violently attacked other parties, physically took over soviets that did'nt vote them in, and once in control essencially made electing a ritualistic act. The workers did'nt make a wrong decision, the bolsheiks lied to the workers, and destroyed those that saw through their lies. "All power to the soviets" was their battle cry, and they did'nt do that.

BTW, notice how quickly a Leninist labels one as a reactionary and enemy of the working class, thats one of the scariest aspects of Leninists.

The Bolsheviks betrayed the workers trust, the workers wanted change and they trusted that the Bolsheviks would give Russia over to them, they lied, they gave Russia to the Bolsheviks and trampled anyone that resisted.

I'm sorry, but can you provide a source to validate your accusation that they 'attacked' other parties?

The Cadets (pro-Kerensky, anti-Semites) were banned after October, but the Right Socialist Revolutionaries and 'centrist' Mensheviks were invited to join the Bolshevik government after abstaining from the elections. It wasn't until January that the Left Socialist Revolutionaries booked it, and they did that on their own. So no, Lenin 'allowed' (even if the SP and Bolsheviks voted in coalition to put him as head of the People's Commisars) multi-party competition.

[Tower of Bebel]

Trotsky was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent during the revolution, Stalin was active in crushing leftwing working class dissent after it.
When Trotsky heard about Lenin's critiques in his testament (such as Trotsky's bureaucratic ideas and preoccupation with the purely administrative side) he tried to reconsider the history of Bolshevism since October. There was once a time when Trotsky almost treated criticism of the party as treason. That was during the civil war; that was when Kronstadt got slaughtered. But Lenin's death and especially his testament initiated a new period: one of criticism and critical assessment of bureaucracy and the relation between centralism and democracy. Yet, I think only Lenin really championed the concept of democratic centralism.

Important products of this reconsideration were The Left Opposition, "The Revolution Betrayed" and, of course, "The Transitional Program". When quoting Trotsky's Transitional program to point that the crisis of leadership is the crisis of mankind, some forget to the paragraph which precedes it:

Without inner democracy – no revolutionary education. Without discipline – no revolutionary action. The inner structure of the Fourth International is based on the principles of democratic centralism: full freedom in discussion, complete unity in action.

The present crisis in human culture is the crisis in the proletarian leadership.

Though an important mistake was the fact that he largely ignored his own role during the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution. Yet maybe this was due to the witch hunt for "anti-bolsheviks" that frightened the rank and file of the Bolshevik party during the late 20's and mid 30's.

Trotskyism is eventually (in a way) another product of this reconsideration of the history of Bolshevism.

[RGacky3]

I couldn't have said it better.

As much as I can sympathize with some of the ideas and beliefs from the left SRs and international mensheviks, eventually they were voted out from the Soviets.


It some they were voted out, in others they were bared from participating in the elections. Its not a fair election, its not democracy when opponants are killed, barred from elections, there were also times where the BOlsheviks lost the election and they just took over the soviet by force, took control of the soviet without popular consent.

Even after that, they lied, they did'nt give power to the soviets, they centralized it in the CC.


"Violently attacked soviets"? Where are you getting your sources from?

I did'nt say violently attacked soviets, I said violently attacked other parties, had people that opposed the bolshevik party shot. All in the name of "defending the revolution."

[RGacky3]

I'm sorry, but can you provide a source to validate your accusation that they 'attacked' other parties?

Various books I read, but if you read about the Cheka that Lenin set up, a lot of it was dedicated to attacking the Socialist revolutionaries and other left Bolshevik opposition.


So no, Lenin 'allowed' (even if the SP and Bolsheviks voted in coalition to put him as head of the People's Commisars) multi-party competition.

First of all your forgetting the bolsheviks, he allowed for a very short time, it did'nt take long for non-bolshevik parties to be banned.

Also, if a party has the power to ban other parties, and only allow its own, its impossible to call that situation democratic. I'm not saying that the Bolsheviks had a lot of support (maybe the marjority), what I am saying is that they betrayed that trust, consolidated control, took power from the soviets, and destroyed any chance of democracy and thus communism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Various books I read,"Various books" is not sufficient referencing - you should be capable of naming the books you are drawing your arguments from, and if possible the precise section within each individual book, as then we can debate whether these texts should be accepted as legitimate factual accounts of what actually happened.


if you read about the Cheka that Lenin set up, a lot of it was dedicated to attacking the Socialist revolutionaries and other left Bolshevik opposition.During the Civil War (1918-1922) the opposition parties were actively fighting against the Bolsheviks and were attempting to overthrow the workers government which had arisen as a result of the October Revolution and replace it with a bourgeois-democratic government which would have carried on the war effort at the cost of millions of lives - the original source of the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the SRs was the decision to agree to the armistice offered by the German government at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, as the armistice involved Russia handing over large expanses of her territory including some of the most important resource and population centers. Lenin also suffered several attempts on his life from members of these parties, most notably Fanny Kaplan in 1918, and it was a combination of these two factors (military conflict and assassination attempts) which led the Bolsheviks to give power to the Cheka (the organization itself was actually created in 1917 to fight against the supporters of the Tsarist regime and initially included members of the Left-SRs) and enforce the Red Terror, as a legitimate response to the threat of counter-revolution.


Also, if a party has the power to ban other parties, and only allow its own, its impossible to call that situation democraticIt has already been shown that the Bolsheviks did not "ban" other parties, instead they were forced to become the sole governing party by the refusal of these parties to cooperate with the Bolsheviks and not attack Bolshevik leaders. However, it is also wrong to assume that a government based on the power of one party must automatically be undemocratic, because the Bolsheviks were never a homogeneous organization - right up until the 10th Party Congress in 1922, independent political factions were able to organize freely within the party and put forward their own ideas and hold debates with other factions.

[RGacky3]

It has already been shown that the Bolsheviks did not "ban" other parties, instead they were forced to become the sole governing party by the refusal of these parties to cooperate with the Bolsheviks and not attack Bolshevik leaders.

Yes they did, before the civil war, the Bolsheviks main support was only in St Petersburg and Moscow, they barred memership in the soviets from non Bolshevics, the other parties opted out after that.


During the Civil War (1918-1922) the opposition parties were actively fighting against the Bolsheviks and were attempting to overthrow the workers government which had arisen as a result of the October Revolution and replace it with a bourgeois-democratic government

This was after the Bolsheviks had taken full control, and whether they were fighting for a bourgeois democratic government is'nt clear, because also anarchists were fighting against the Bolsheviks.

Your right Lenin had many attempts on his life, but the Cheka was'nt only used to fight assasins, criminals and violent reactionaries, it was also used to crush left opposition (it should'nt matter if its left or right), and suppress free speach.


"Various books" is not sufficient referencing - you should be capable of naming the books you are drawing your arguments from, and if possible the precise section within each individual book, as then we can debate whether these texts should be accepted as legitimate factual accounts of what actually happened.

Your right, I'll ahve to go back when I get a chance and look them up.


However, it is also wrong to assume that a government based on the power of one party must automatically be undemocratic, because the Bolsheviks were never a homogeneous organization - right up until the 10th Party Congress in 1922, independent political factions were able to organize freely within the party and put forward their own ideas and hold debates with other factions.

Your right but the Bolsheviks at every opportunity they had, suppressed democracy, once they had actual power over the soviets they never gave it back, at every opportunity to stop opposition they took it.

I'm not saying you cannot have something resembling a democracy with one party, but you can't have it when the opposition is regularly getting arrested, and where the party line is enforced by the gun.

But your right, the Bolsheviks did'nt suppress all opposition all at once, because they could'nt, but as soon as they could they did, once they had the power to get total power they did it, and they never gave it back. There was no autonomy.

[Bud Struggle]

It's interesting to note that the "Revolution" wasn't Marxist. They Marxist took over AFTER the Revolution.

[Tower of Bebel]

It's interesting to note that the "Revolution" wasn't Marxist. They Marxist took over AFTER the Revolution.That's because you don't distinguish revolution from revolt, and because you don't define the revolution as a process (stretching from 1916 to 1927).

[RGacky3]

It's interesting to note that the "Revolution" wasn't Marxist. They Marxist took over AFTER the Revolution.

It was a workers revolution, then lenin came.

[danyboy27]

It was a workers revolution, then lenin came.

he really came?

[Bud Struggle]

he really came?

All over the workers.

[danyboy27]

All over the workers.

hahahahahahahahaha
i was tempted to do a little photoshop of this

[RHIZOMES]

No, "socialism in one country" has proven itself to be a disaster, in my opinion.

And permanent revolution would be an overwhelming success? :lol:

[RGacky3]

And permanent revolution would be an overwhelming success?

Stalinism and Troskyism are NOT the only 2 options. Thank God

[Bud Struggle]

Stalinism and Troskyism are NOT the only 2 options. Thank God

Hoxha?

[danyboy27]

Hoxha?

no i think he just made reference to anarchism.

anyway, i dont even know if permanent revolution have been tried once.

[Bud Struggle]

no i think he just made reference to anarchism.

anyway, i dont even know if permanent revolution have been tried once.

The MIM crowd at their website go on and on about Trotskyism being a total failure--never been tried. Well, that's them. Trotsky seem to make some rather good sense to me. I'm sure there's Trotskyists that have an opinion.

[Frost]

I wasn't aware we judged history solely by who won. It's like you've given the OI a 2 meter wide unprotected exhaust port to fire a proton torpedo down and destroy the entire station.

lol
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1033/582093783_f7d4585a41.jpg?v=0

Not to bash the Trotskyists, but he was pretty impractical. His dedication to internationalism just wasn't feasible during a time where Communism was taking on internal and external threats. I'm not sure how well the USSR would've stood up against Nazi Germany in WWII without a strong, ultra-disciplined form of socialism. Stalin's efforts to focus on the USSR may have saved it from falling into the hands of the Axis.

[RGacky3]

I'm not sure how well the USSR would've stood up against Nazi Germany in WWII without a strong, ultra-disciplined form of socialism. Stalin's efforts to focus on the USSR may have saved it from falling into the hands of the Axis.

I don't see how sending huge amounts of your population to gulags for thought crimes, purging your party of dissentors, purging your country of dissentors, and centralizing power as much as possible helps militarily, there is no proof or reasoning that shows that a free socialist society could defend itself any less than otherwise.

Sure he saved it from falling into the hands of the axis, istead it fell to Stalins hand, and that was'nt so much better.

[Comrade B]

Trotskyists have good ideas and fight with each other over them.
Stalinists have bad ideas and fight united for them.

[Sendo]

both were elitists who didn't trust the workers to rule themselves. IF Trotsky had "won" it would have been better, but not by much. There were still huge problems with centralization that Mao and Che picked up on. The Soviet model, without flexibility was doomed. The only flexibility came in the form of Kruschev who kept opening the door for the return of capitalism. But you can't blame any individual; it was a failure on many people's accounts and the interference of the West, etc, etc.

[Charles Xavier]

The biggest difference is that stalinism isn't a real ideology. The attack on "Stalinism" is usually an attack on Leninism. From both the ultra-left and the revisionists.

People who fight "Stalinism" are usually shadow boxing.

[synthesis]

The biggest difference is that stalinism isn't a real ideology. The attack on "Stalinism" is usually an attack on Leninism. From both the ultra-left and the revisionists.

People who fight "Stalinism" are usually shadow boxing.

I agree with you that most critiques of "Stalinism" are attacking his authoritarian excesses and are generally oblivious to the authoritarian nature of the centralized state required by Leninism, which itself was an adaptation of Marxism to Russian realities.

Trotsky himself probably wouldn't have been any better for the Soviet Union in terms of humanitarianism; these attacks on Stalinism are predicated on the fantasy that the Russian Revolution was an expression of "pure communism" that was subsequently hijacked by "the bad guy."

However, although Stalinism isn't necessarily a formal and cohesive ideology, it is certainly "real" in the sense that it built on Leninism and formed its own doctrines. The primary difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism was the former's promotion of the concept of "socialism in one country, spreading outwards", which was primarily a justification for Russian imperialism in the Soviet era.

That's partially why Stalin won out; to the Russians, the "top dogs" of 20th-century Communism, Stalin represented a revitalized sense of Russian nationalism as opposed to the so-called "rootless cosmopolitanism" of Jews such as Trotsky who argued for simultaneous international revolution rather than "socialism in one country."

In the modern day, "Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" are generally distinguished by whether or not they reject the Western attitude that "Stalin was up there with Hitler" in terms of being a terrible person. At this point, the debate is over history more than ideology.

[RGacky3]

Trotsky himself probably wouldn't have been any better for the Soviet Union in terms of humanitarianism;

I do think that Trotsky would have been better, simply because he seamed more reasonable and less parenoid than Stalin, but it would have still been just as authoritarian, just less brutal.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I do think that Trotsky would have been better, simply because he seamed more reasonable and less parenoid than Stalin, but it would have still been just as authoritarian, just less brutal.

I just finished a Trotsky bio, and I have to say that I think the USSR would have been vastly more successful, for the average person, had he gained power. Perhaps his biggest flaw was his inability to do the dirty work like Stalin could.

I was wrong to start this thread with "Stalinism." There is no Stalinism.

Stalin sided with the right-wing when the left-wing was a threat, and crushed them. Once complete, he took up the left-wing positions and used that to get rid of the right.

He was a power hungry opportunist through and through. Of course, all of our politicians are to but luckily they don't have absolute control.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Just curious. Is it just that trotsky would try and conquer the world ffor communism, or there are real ideological differences?

That's easy. ;)

Stalinists: Highly authoritarian, want socialism in one country.

Trotskyists: Follow more traditional Marxism(Libertarian), want worldwide revolution.

That's Trotskyism and Stalinism in a nutshell. ;)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That's easy. ;)

Stalinists: Highly authoritarian, want socialism in one country.

Trotskyists: Follow more traditional Marxism(Libertarian), want worldwide revolution.

That's Trotskyism and Stalinism in a nutshell. ;)

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

Yep. Gotta love the simple, yet accurate descriptions given by us crazy Trots. ;)

[Invincible Summer]

What gets me about Trotskyists (at least the ones I know) is their dedication to using polemics against non-Trotskyist parties - even other leftists.

However, I think the Trotskyist term "degenerated worker's state" is useful for defining nations like China and Cuba.

I have pretty mixed feelings about Trotskyism - international revolution is good, but vanguardism and the whole crushing dissent thing...

[Bud Struggle]

I'm no expert on any of this--but down deep in my heart I feel a lot better world would have happened if Trotsky had taken over the USSR. I think Trotsky could be as big a dick as any of them (Roosevelt, Stalin, Chruchill) but he wasn't a madman as Stalin seemed to be in the end.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm no expert on any of this--but down deep in my heart I feel a lot better world would have happened if Trotsky had taken over the USSR. I think Trotsky could be as big a dick as any of them (Roosevelt, Stalin, Chruchill) but he wasn't a madman as Stalin seemed to be in the end.



Of course Stalin was a madman. Any mass murdering dictator is considered a madman in my mind.