The Day Trotsky Died.

[ChrisK]

Well to be fair, Hitler did write about the inferiority of Jews and other ethnic groups in "Mein Kampf". I think that's plenty of evidence that Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Maybe, they weren't killed as rapidly at the beginning but his eventual goal was to wipe them out.

I can definatly give you that. There were policies, however, to send the Jews away at first, but when no country would accept them they went back to Germany where Hitler came up with the final solution.

[ChrisK]

InsertNameHere said exactly what I was going to say thanks InsertNameHere. I rest my case.

Well, I would like you to explain how the Jews are over half the Earth's population.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I can definatly give you that. There were policies, however, to send the Jews away at first, but when no country would accept them they went back to Germany where Hitler came up with the final solution.

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

[ChrisK]

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

Glanced at one of my history books and you're right. Thank you for bringing that to my attention or else I'd be remebering incorrectly still .

[The Bear]

The Beer you are funny guy. You don't give and evidence, nor you put any kind of argument. You are not even funny nor anything... You just write some stuff that has nothing to do with post's you quote...
Every time I asked you here, or in Zapadni Balkan's place to explain or argument something, you just started to write something about attacks etc. which has nothing to do with quotes etc.

Yes, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. So what? That's my ideology. But can you explain what's anti-authoritarian Leninism?!
Stalinists here jump and scream on every "anti-authoritarian" phrase, and tag it as liberal. So, by that logic, are you liberal Leninist?

Also it's a funny thing that if I was posting such nonsenses my posts will be in trash and I'll get 10 red marks...

Obviously it is some psychical problem you suffer from childhood . First of all what we discuss in zapadni balkan is not for here cause this is not zapadni balkan . Therefore you are only trying to show how intellectualy superior you are , and how your intellect rules around forum which is also problem of psychical kind. Second thing , i have no intention to give you arguments why am i a marxist-leninist , i am marxist-leninist , but im not sectarian... Of how funny i am, is your personal conclusion which is zero relevant. Third , dont bother trying to put me in same line with all others which you discussed this same topic. All people are not same. You are just trying to put everyone in sectarian baskets by way which you decide. We are not all like

[Wanted Man]

(I'll get to Christofer's response later, I just thought this was interesting to comment on)

Jews tried to leave Germany and other countries occupied by the Nazis because of the discrimination they were enduring. For many they left by their own choice only to be turned down by other countries. They really had no choice but to return to Europe where many were later killed. Canada in particular let in almost no Jewish immigrants before WW II. We had prejudiced immigration policies stating that pretty much only Christian English and French immigrants could enter.

Some European countries had policies like that too. The Netherlands, for one, stuffed the Jewish refugees into camps near the border. So once the Germans invaded, the camp infrastructure was already made for them, they only had to make a railway so that these people could be sent over to Auschwitz...

[LeninKobaMao]

Well, I would like you to explain how the Jews are over half the Earth's population.

Not just Jews I feel like i'm wasting my time here. He hated: Jews, Slavs, Roma, Black People, Menatlly and Physically unstable, Homosexuals, Asians to an extent and basically anyone who wasn't 'aryan'. That is over half of the earth's population. Asia is the home to most of the world's population on it's own.

[ChrisK]

Not just Jews I feel like i'm wasting my time here. He hated: Jews, Slavs, Roma, Black People, Menatlly and Physically unstable, Homosexuals, Asians to an extent and basically anyone who wasn't 'aryan'. That is over half of the earth's population. Asia is the home to most of the world's population on it's own.

Your not providing evidence. He was okay with Slavs, Celts, Greek and Latino.

The proof I'm asking for is proof that he wanted them all dead and not just in subservient roles.

[Led Zeppelin]

He was a Menshevik and became a Bolshevik only in 1917

Trotsky was a Menshevik for little over a year. The split happened around August 1903, Trotsky left the Mensheviks in September 1904.

maybe a Troskyist can tell me what key experience convinced him to change his position so drastically in that year? Because as it is, it just seems to me that he checked which way the wind blew and joined the crew that was most likely to succeed and get him somewhere.

Because the Bolsheviks were the only organization who supported his thesis of permanent revolution (which said that socialist revolution was possible in Russia), and he agreed with Lenin on this (and pretty much everything else) entirely, while Stalin accepted the Menshevik stageist theory which said that socialist revolution was impossible and the Bolsheviks should enter a coalition with the Mensheviks and SR's:

“Order of the day: Tseretelli’s proposal for unification.

“STALIN: We ought to go. It is necessary to define our proposal as to the terms of unification. Unification is possible along the lines of Zimmerwald-Kienthal.”

This is why Lenin said of Trotsky:

As for a compromise – I cannot even speak about that seriously. Trotsky said long ago that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik.

Link

Much as I despise Stalin, he was an excellent revolutionary in the years leading up to 1917, risked his life many times, made huge sacrifices, and fought against all odds. He had dedicated his entire life to the revolution.

Trotsky was elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet in 1905. And a lot more stuff he did in the period before 1917 that I'm not really interested in telling you about. Read up on it; he didn't just sit around and sip tea and then suddenly rise through the ranks in 1917.

These are just impressions, and I might be completely wrong. I request to be corrected should this be the case.

I have fulfilled your request. You have been corrected.

I don't understand why you don't just read up about this stuff instead of posting on Revleft and asking to be corrected, though.

[Ismail]

Zeppelin is right as far as Stalin being a generally 'moderate' person went. As bourgeois historian Ian Grey notes in his 1979 work Stalin: Man of History (pages 56-7):

At the Stockholm congress [of 1906] the Mensheviks argued in favor of municipalization of the land, which meant vesting it in locally elected councils to be administered for the benefit of the peasants. Lenin and the Bolsheviks proposed nationalization by vesting the land in the central government and, so they claimed, making it the property of all citizens. Argument raged around these two proposals.

[...] In the congress Stalin bluntly condemned both municipalization and nationalization and proposed as a "temporary" expedient what he called distributism, which meant seizing and sharing out the land directly among the peasants. This was what they wanted and this alone would win their support. Lenin and others attacked his proposal, but he stood his ground, maintaining that it was the obvious practical policy. He argued further that in fostering rural capitalism his proposal was in accordance with Marxist doctrine and a logical advance towards the socialist revolution. And in 1917 his policy, by then endorsed by Lenin, produced the slogan "All land to the peasants," which gained the party wide support on the land and was a major factor in its victory.

And pages 89-90:

On March 12 [1917], the day of his return to Petrograd, the bureau considered the question of Stalin's admission to its membership.... Three days after his return he was elected to the bureau's Presidium with full voting rights and was appointed Bolshevik representative on the Executive Committee (Excom) of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies. With Kamenev he also took over Pravda... Stalin dominated the party during the three weeks until Lenin's return. Recognizing that Lenin's violent opposition to the war and to the provisional government would antagonize most party members and people outside the party, he pursued a moderate policy. He advocated limited support for the provisional government on the grounds that the bourgeois-democratic revolution was not yet complete and that there would be a period of years before conditions were ripe for the socialist revolution. It made no sense, therefore, to work to destroy the government at this stage.

In his policy towards the war he was equally common-sensed, writing that "when an army faces the enemy, it would be the most stupid policy to urge it to lay down arms and go home." In response to the general demand among Social Democrats, he was even prepared to consider reunion with acceptable elements in the Menshevik party, and on his initiative the bureau agreed to convene a joint conference.

Pravda reflected this policy of moderation. Articles received from Lenin were edited, and the abusive references to the provisional government and to the Mensheviks were toned down or cut. According to Shlyapnikov, jaundiced by his summary displacement, the "editorial revolution was strongly criticized by Petrograd workers, some even demanding the expulsion of Stalin, Kamenev and Muranov from the party."

Source cited on Stalin on war and the demands for his expulsion: A.G. Shlyanpikov, The Year 1917: Second Book (Moscow and Petrograd, 1923), p. 179, 183.

Trotsky was a Menshevik for little over a year. The split happened around August 1903, Trotsky left the Mensheviks in September 1904.

To my understanding he was, in effect, a moderate, pro-unification Menshevik in words if not formally. I don't think I need to point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin from 1905-1915 or so.

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., 1925, p. 303.)

[Led Zeppelin]

To my understanding he was, in effect, a moderate, pro-unification Menshevik in words if not formally. I don't think I need to point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin from 1905-1915 or so.

He was a conciliator, i.e., tied to neither party but criticizing both. He left the Mensheviks due to their reactionary positions, which included calling for an alliance with liberals and opposing reunification with the Bolsheviks. Also their reactionary position on the 1905 revolution in which he actively participated as a revolutionary.

If you can point out occasions where he praises various Mensheviks and condemns Lenin, I can point out occasions where he praises Bolsheviks and condemns Martov and other Menshevik leaders from the same period, so let's be honest here.

"I cannot be called a Bolshevik... We must not be demanded to recognise Bolshevism." (Leon Trotsky, Mezhrayontsi conference, May 1917, quoted in Lenin, Miscellany IV, Russ. ed., p. 303.)

Are you not aware of Trotsky's purpose in the Mezhrayontsi? He was ready to immediately join the Bolsheviks upon his arrival in Petrograd, but the Bolsheviks asked him to join the Mezhrayontsi instead in order to sway them even closer to the Bolsheviks and eventually fuse the two, which is what happened:

I did not enter the Bolshevik organization immediately upon my arrival from Canada. Why? Was it because I had disagreements? You are trying to concoct them now in retrospect. Whoever lived through the year 1917 as a member of the central kernel of the Bolsheviks knows that there was never a hint of any disagreement between Lenin and me from the very first day. On my arrival in Petrograd – or rather at the Finland Station – I learned from the comrades sent to meet me that there existed in Petrograd an organization of revolutionary internationalists (the so-called “Mezhrayontsi” [5]) which was postponing the question of fusion with the Bolsheviks; in addition, certain of the leading members of this organization linked their decision on this question with my arrival. Among the personnel of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization, which comprised about 4,000 Petrograd workers, were Uritsky, A.A. Joffe, Lunacharsky, Yurenev, Karakhan, Vladimirov, Manuilsky, Pozern, Litkens and others.

Here is the characterization of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization given in a note (pp.488f.) in Volume XIV of Lenin’s Collected Works:

“On the war question the ‘Mezhrayontsi’ held an internationalist position and in their tactics were close to the Bolsheviks.”

From the earliest days of my arrival, I stated first to comrade Kamenev, afterward to the editorial hoard of Pravda, in the presence of Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, that I was ready to join the Bolshevik organization immediately in view of the absence of any disagreements whatever but that it was necessary to decide the question of the quickest possible way of attracting the “Mezhrayontsi” organization into the party. I remember that some one of those present raised the question of how I thought the fusion should be carried out (what member of the “Mezhrayontsi” should go into the editorial board of Pravda, who into the Central Committee, etc.). I answered that for me that question had no political importance what so ever in view of the absence of any disagreements.

Among the membership of the “Mezhrayontsi” organization there were elements which tried to impede the fusion, advancing this or that condition, etc. (Yurenev and, in part, Manuilsky). Between the Petersburg Committee of the party and the “Mezhrayontsi” organization there had piled up, as always in such circumstances, old grudges, lack of confidence, etc. That and that alone caused the delay in our fusion until July.

Link

Also, where did you get that quote from exactly? I could not find it in Lenin's collected works on MIA and a google search didn't help either.

[communard resolution]

Trotsky was elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet in 1905. And a lot more stuff he did in the period before 1917 that I'm not really interested in telling you about.

No problem at all, perhaps somebody else will.

I don't understand why you don't just read up about this stuff instead of posting on Revleft and asking to be corrected, though

Because I'm already reading 5 books at the same time, and then there's life beyond reading books as well. Revleft gives me the chance to compare glimpses of information against other people's knowledge and, in the best case, straighten out my prejudices or misconceptions. In this spirit, thank you for your replies.

[Ismail]

Also, where did you get that quote from exactly? I could not find it in Lenin's collected works on MIA and a google search didn't help either.

MIA doesn't have everything by Lenin, and different language versions of collected works generally have different stuff in them. If you look up Miscellany IV on Google or MIA, though, you can see that MIA does have stuff from it translated into English. As for the quote itself, a Russian Trotskyist sent it to me once, so I saved it.

As a note on Stalin and the question of revolution, it seems that by August Stalin said that revolution was possible in Russia. As Grey notes on pages 95-6:

Dissenting from a proposal that revolution was possible "on condition of a proletarian revolution in the West," he [Stalin] said [at the Sixth Party Congress of August 1917] that "the possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that blazes the trail to socialism.... It is necessary to give up the outworn idea that Europe alone can show us the way. There is a dogmatic Marxism and a creative Marxism. I stand on the ground of the latter."

Source cited is Shestoi s'ezd RSDRP (b) August 1917 gode (Moscow, 1958), pp. 174-75.

Also, pages 100-102:

The Second Russian Congress of Soviets [of October 1917] had approved the new government... the Congress formally appointed Lenin's Council of People's Kommissars by decree, and then elected a Central Executive Committee of 101 members. The Bolsheviks won 62 seats on this committee, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who had formed a separate party, 29 seats, and other parties 10.... Lenin thus succeeded nominally in basing his government on the three main classes—workers, peasants, and soldiers. But he had not yet met the demand in Sovnarkom, in the Central Executive Committee, and within his own party for a coalition of all socialist parties. Right-wing Bolsheviks in particular were determined to force a coalition with the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. Zinoviev, Rykov, Milyutin, Vladimir Nogin, and Lunacharsky, who had all opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power but, after its success, had accepted office in Sovnarkom, now resigned.

They and Kamenev also were even prepared to consider a Menshevik proposal that Lenin and Trotsky should be excluded from any coalition government. The agitation continued until, with the approval of the majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee, a statement, signed by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, threatened the agitators with expulsion from the party.... Stalin... signed the statement warning the right-wing members, who were agitating for coalition, and he had rejected the Menshevik proposal that Lenin and Trotsky should be excluded from a coalition government.

[communard resolution]

He was okay with Slavs

No, he was not.

The proof I'm asking for is proof that he wanted them all dead and not just in subservient roles.

You're right here. Hitler wanted Slavs to serve the Germans as slaves, not exterminate them.

[Led Zeppelin]

No problem at all, perhaps somebody else will.

The problem is that when somebody tells you something, they may be biased and not tell you the truth (that happens a lot, especially on Revleft). That is why I wondered about asking others about historical issues which are interpreted by ideology and therefore involve a lot of bias rather than facts, instead of reading about it yourself (from various perspectives).

Regarding Trotsky's revolutionary activity before 1917 I can suggest Deutscher's Prophet series, specifically the first part called The Prophet Armed

Because I'm already reading 5 books at the same time, and then there's life beyond reading books as well. Revleft gives me the chance to compare glimpses of information against other people's knowledge and, in the best case, straighten out my prejudices or misconceptions. In this spirit, thank you for your replies.

Fair enough, I understand that you can't read everything at the same time. I myself am reading 4 books at the moment. However, I still think that the best way to get fact-based answers is to read on these issues in-depth rather than asking about it on Revleft.

By the way, I'm not exempt from that criticism myself. I acknowledge that my answers aren't sufficiently detailed or in-depth either. For example, what I wrote to you as a reply in my previous post was pretty superficial when compared to the historical facts offered in Deutscher's book.

[Искра]

Uh..

Originally posted by: ChristoferKoch
"The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met on October 25-26, 1917, at 22:40, in the Smolny Institute. Of the 649 delegates elected to the Congress of Soviets, representing 318 provincial/local soviets, 390 were Bolshevik, 160 Socialist-Revolutionaries (about 100 were Left SRs), 72 Mensheviks, 14 Menshevik Internationalists, and 13 of various groups." Marxist Internet Archive

390 out of 649 is about 60%. Add in the Left SRs (who formed the government with the bolsheviks) and you have 490 out of 649 and you have 75.5% support for the Bolshevik-Left SR grouping. Thats a majority support either way you look at it.

I was talking about Noveber 25th 1917.

Trotsky disagrees with you:
"All the officers, all the doctors and engineers, all the educated specialists who have hitherto been zealously engaged in sabotage, will be dragged out into the open. It is said that the attitude of the former officers is counter-revolutionary, that it will be dangerous to entrust them with military work in a socialist army. But, in the first place, they will be allotted only the technical and operational-strategic aspects of the work, while the entire apparatus of the army as a whole, its organisation and internal structure will be entirely and completely a matter for the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. And, in the second place, the officers and generals were objects of fear to us only when they controlled the entire mechanism of state power. Now, they are helpless to shake and undermine the foundations of Soviet power. But let every one of them realize, and firmly keep in mind, that if they make the slightest attempt to use their position for counter-revolutionary purposes, they will suffer severe punishment, they will be dealt with in accordance with the full strictness of revolutionary order, they will be shown no mercy!"
Leon Trotsky, 1918

Wasn't Trotsky War Commesair? Why would I believe him? His speeches and writings are mostly propaganda.
Also, my point is that Czarist generals and other Czarist buerocrates, kept their privileged class position, because new government needed them. So, what we have is revolution "class vs. class", and we have privileged class keeping it's exploiters position. You can't say that one Czarist general and one proletarian from Petrograd lived same life of luxury in 1917 - blabla.

Your avoiding the issue. The issue is they wanted an alliance and made an effort for it. The fact that neither side would back down about their interests is a side issue.

And what is the issue? That Hitler and Stalin were negotiating? That's a fact. They also had an pact. You claim that they wanted an alliance? That's not true. They wanted pact. Nazism was always against "communism" and communism. Hitler wanted alliance with England.

Your not providing evidence. He was okay with Slavs, Celts, Greek and Latino.

This is not true. He was maybe OK with Celts and Greeks, but not with Slavs. Hitler claimed that Slavs are "slave race" and that they should live behind Urals and work for Master race. Only Slavic nation which got "master race" status was Croatian, since Ustashe were fighting in Stalingrad and their leadership was exterminating Jews, Romas etc in Croatia and Bosnia.

[ChrisK]

No, he was not.

You're right here. Hitler wanted Slavs to serve the Germans as slaves, not exterminate them.

Thats what I meant by okay with them. They were impure Aryans so they could live, albeit as slaves. In other words he could stand them enough to polish his boots.

[ChrisK]

Uh..


I was talking about Noveber 25th 1917.

The Peasant Congress? That concluded pro-Bolshevik?

http://marxists.org/archive/reed/191...0days/ch12.htm

Thats from Ten Days that Shook the World.

Wasn't Trotsky War Commesair? Why would I believe him? His speeches and writings are mostly propaganda.
Also, my point is that Czarist generals and other Czarist buerocrates, kept their privileged class position, because new government needed them. So, what we have is revolution "class vs. class", and we have privileged class keeping it's exploiters position. You can't say that one Czarist general and one proletarian from Petrograd lived same life of luxury in 1917 - blabla.

You should believe him since you have no proof otherwise.

"The old ranks were not restored, but thousands of former imperial officers were returned to service as 'military specialists' under the watchful supervision of political commissars. In this way, badly needed command experience and technical knowledge were provided until a new corps of Red Commanders could be trained."- Paul Avrich Kronstadt 1921

There that supports Trotsky's interpretation.

They didn't get their old privilleges. Find me proof they did.

And what is the issue? That Hitler and Stalin were negotiating? That's a fact. They also had an pact. You claim that they wanted an alliance? That's not true. They wanted pact. Nazism was always against "communism" and communism. Hitler wanted alliance with England.

Look at the book that was posted by wanted man and the books posted by me. The talks in late 1940 were to try to get Russia into the Axis as a permenant member.

This is not true. He was maybe OK with Celts and Greeks, but not with Slavs. Hitler claimed that Slavs are "slave race" and that they should live behind Urals and work for Master race. Only Slavic nation which got "master race" status was Croatian, since Ustashe were fighting in Stalingrad and their leadership was exterminating Jews, Romas etc in Croatia and Bosnia.

Maybe okay was the wrong word. When I'm saying okay I'm saying will let them live as lesser humans.

[Radical]

I provided them earlier. Here's the best one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Yz...0talks&f=false

It starts on page 75.

There is also a wikipedia article on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%...iet_Axis_talks

I'm not Pro-Stalin. However I give him major credit for the achievements he and his policies made on Russia.

He fullfilled his Historical mission, which was to transform Russia from a Peasant society into an industrial super power.

Stalin continually re-read and Studied "Mein Kamph" and already knew of Hitlers desire to invade to the east, in particular RUSSIA. Stalin wasen't that fucking dumb to think a lasting Alliance would be made with Nazi Germany.

Nazism is Anti-Communist. Communism is Anti-Fascist.

I think you have an obbsessive fetish with thinking Stalin was a Fascist. (Like a lot of Anarchists/Trots)

[ChrisK]

I'm not Pro-Stalin. However I give him major credit for the achievements he and his policies made on Russia.

He fullfilled his Historical mission, which was to transform Russia from a Peasant society into an industrial super power.

Stalin continually re-read and Studied "Mein Kamph" and already knew of Hitlers desire to invade to the east, in particular RUSSIA. Stalin wasen't that fucking dumb to think a lasting Alliance would be made with Nazi Germany.

The hullabaloo raised by the British, French and American press over the Soviet Ukraine is characteristic.

The gentlemen of the press there shouted until they were hoarse that the Germans were marching on Soviet Ukraine, that they now had what is called the Carpathian Ukraine, with a population of some seven hundred thousand, and that not later than this spring the Germans would annex the Soviet Ukraine, which has a population of over thirty million, to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine. It looks as if the object of this suspicious hullabaloo was to incense the Soviet Union against Germany, to poison the atmosphere and to provoke a conflict with Germany without any visible grounds.

It is quite possible, of course, that there are madmen in Germany who dream of annexing the elephant, that is, the Soviet Ukraine, to the gnat, namely, the so-called Carpathian Ukraine. If there really are such lunatics in Germany, rest assured that we shall find enough straitjackets for them in our country. (Thunderous applause.) But if we ignore the madmen and turn to normal people, is it not clearly absurd and foolish to seriously talk of annexing the Soviet Ukraine to this so-called Carpathian Ukraine? Imagine : The gnat comes to the elephant and says perkily : "Ah, brother, how sorry I am for you . . . Here you are without any landlords, without any capitalists, with no national oppression, without any fascist bosses. Is that a way to live? . . . As I look at you I can't help thinking that there is no hope for you unless you annex yourself to me . . . (General laughter.) Well, so be it :

I allow you to annex your tiny domain to my vast territories . . ." (General laughter and applause.)

Here we have Stalin telling the Congress that we don't need to worry. They won't try to annex us. It just doesn't make sense. So yes, he tried to make an alliance later.

Nazism is Anti-Communist. Communism is Anti-Fascist.

I think you have an obbsessive fetish with thinking Stalin was a Fascist. (Like a lot of Anarchists/Trots)

No, Stalin was the head of a State Capitalist regime. He wasn't a fascist at all.