Why is there so much hate for Trotsky?

[Pretty Flaco]

I know the title is vague, but what I'm asking is vague. I see a lot of contempt for Trotsky on here and I really don't understand why.
well, I do understand why when it's coming from stalinists, but that's about it.

[Nolan]

He did krondstat

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I honestly think he didn't contribute much besides being an opposition to Stalin.

[CHAIRMAN GONZALO]

Trotsky was just an imperialist agent.

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com...reading-guide/

[Amphictyonis]

Trots and Stalinists who can't see the Russian situation does not apply to modern advanced capitalist nations are regressive not progressive. The gist of the arguments between Stalinists and Trots is right wing communism against left wing communism. Blah blah what does this have to do with 21 century advanced capitalist nations?

The anarchists are angry because of kronstadt. Another issue which has no bearing to our 21 century. Marxists and anarchists should form a united front, one with the aim of destroying capitalism with a very very critical eye on the post revolution concept and function of government.

[Crux]

I know the title is vague, but what I'm asking is vague. I see a lot of contempt for Trotsky on here and I really don't understand why.
well, I do understand why when it's coming from stalinists, but that's about it.

Some people are just sore losers. As for the stalinists, tvm's link here is actually rather helpful in it's amusing distortions. We the destroyed those phony arguments already in the 1930's.

In before "Hotel Bristol!!". Haha, some people...

[Crux]

Trots and Stalinists who can't see the Russian situation does not apply to modern advanced capitalist nations are regressive not progressive. The gist of it is right wing communism against left wing communism. Blah blah what does this have to do with 21 century advanced capitalist nations?

So you prefer german situation pre-1919? Blahblah you're not making an argument.

[WeAreReborn]

Some people are just sore losers. As for the stalinists, tvm's link here is actually rather helpful in it's amusing distortions. We the destroyed those phony arguments already in the 1930's.

In before "Hotel Bristol!!". Haha, some people...

I'm curious, who exactly is "we"?

[Amphictyonis]

So you prefer german situation pre-1919? Blahblah you're not making an argument.

I prefer reading Marx/Engels and applying their wisdom to our current conditions rather than squabble over long dead revisionists who came after Marx's death. The Russian revolution was premature and a mistake. Thats the argument I didn't even make....and Trotsky knew this so don't make a fool out of yourself by pushing some 'debate' concerning the non internationalist nature of the Russian revolution. Communism cannot manifest in one nation alone and Lenin erroneously thought imperialism had spread capitalism to it's breaking point. He was wrong.

[Crux]

I'm curious, who exactly is "we"?

The trotskyist movement. And on that note it is interesting TVM would chose Krupskayas text, undoubtly for the added weight of her being Lenin's wife. Here's a quote from the text you would hardly find in any stalinist text after the exile of Trotsky:
Comrade Trotsky devoted the whole of his powers to the fight for the Soviet power during the decisive years of the revolution. He held out heroically in his difficult and responsible position. He worked with unexampled energy and accomplished wonders in the interests of the safeguarding of the victory of the revolution. The Party will not forget this.

[Crux]

I prefer reading Marx/Engels and applying their wisdom to our current conditions rather than squabble over long dead revisionists who came after Marx's death. The Russian revolution was premature and a mistake. Thats the argument I didn't even make.

Ah so you're in the "orthodox" camp.

[Amphictyonis]

Ah so you're in the "orthodox" camp.

Indeed and I don't have anything against anarchists but unlike anarchists I can see Russia would have failed even if it had been as democratic as possible.

[Ismail]

I honestly think he didn't contribute much besides being an opposition to Stalin.

That's basically his only value to a non-Trotskyist anti-"Stalinist."

"Although held now on the small island of Prinkipo by agreement with the Turkish government, Trotsky remained a threat. He was publishing Byuleten Oppozitsii (The Bulletin of the Opposition), which showed that up-to-date information was reaching him through his agents inside Russia. The Bullentin's criticisms and proposals were similar to those set up in Ryutin's platform, but the emphasis was on changing the party leadership and carried all the force of Trotsky's bitter personal hatred."
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 267.)

Besides his vague appeals to "proletarian democracy" when in exile, Trotsky in the early 20's had a reputation for being "dictatorial," which drew criticism from Lenin, Zinoviev and Stalin. In fact Stalin's first major critique of Trotsky came in the form of calling for democratization in 1921. He also said stuff in exile that probably wouldn't have resonated well with left-communists or anarchists either, such as, "The fact that this party subordinates the Soviets politically to its leaders has, in itself, abolished the Soviet system no more than the domination of the conservative majority has abolished the British parliamentary system." (Leon Trotsky. Stalinism and Bolshevism. New York: Pioneer Publishers. 1937. p. 22.)

Then again Trotsky would also seek in 1933 a return to the Soviet Politburo via compromises with the "Stalinist" leadership, which was flatly rejected by said leadership. (See J. Arch Getty's 1986 article "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International")

So anarchists and left-communists really don't have much to support Trotsky for, besides hating on Stalin.

[Kiev Communard]

That's basically his only value to a non-Trotskyist anti-"Stalinist."

"Although held now on the small island of Prinkipo by agreement with the Turkish government, Trotsky remained a threat. He was publishing Byuleten Oppozitsii (The Bulletin of the Opposition), which showed that up-to-date information was reaching him through his agents inside Russia. The Bullentin's criticisms and proposals were similar to those set up in Ryutin's platform, but the emphasis was on changing the party leadership and carried all the force of Trotsky's bitter personal hatred."
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 267.)

Besides his vague appeals to "proletarian democracy" when in exile, Trotsky in the early 20's had a reputation for being "dictatorial," which drew criticism from Lenin, Zinoviev and Stalin. In fact Stalin's first major critique of Trotsky came in the form of calling for democratization in 1921. He also said stuff in exile that probably wouldn't have resonated well with left-communists or anarchists either, such as, "The fact that this party subordinates the Soviets politically to its leaders has, in itself, abolished the Soviet system no more than the domination of the conservative majority has abolished the British parliamentary system." (Leon Trotsky. Stalinism and Bolshevism. New York: Pioneer Publishers. 1937. p. 22.)

Then again Trotsky would also seek in 1933 a return to the Soviet Politburo via compromises with the "Stalinist" leadership, which was flatly rejected by said leadership. (See J. Arch Getty's 1986 article "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International")

So anarchists and left-communists really don't have much to support Trotsky for, besides hating on Stalin.

Considering the fact that Zinoviev had a reputation of being the most dictatorial leader of Comintern, his criticism of Trotsky was a pure hypocrisy.

I don't think that "historical Trotskyism" has anything valuable to offer us in the current situation, but so does Stalinism (including Hoxhaism).

[Ismail]

Considering the fact that Zinoviev had a reputation of being the most dictatorial leader of Comintern, his criticism of Trotsky was a pure hypocrisy.

No one was saying that Zinoviev was a wonderful person either. The point is that, from the view of a left-communist/anarchist, there's nothing to learn from any of the Bolsheviks because none of them would have been radically different in how things would have been administered. (Of course much can be made on how they'd approach the construction of socialism, etc., but I'm talking in terms of state power)

After all, it was Lenin who was against the Workers' Opposition faction, so left-communists would be inclined to think anything he had to say on democracy would be in itself hypocritical too.

In the 1930's it was Stalin who pushed ahead with universal suffrage, multi-candidate party elections, and seriously considered multi-candidate elections for the Supreme Soviet among other democratizing measures (as Getty and Furr, who uses Getty as a source, have noted). Of course a left-communist could point towards any other policy and claim that Stalin wasn't genuine either.

I don't think that "historical Trotskyism" has anything valuable to offer us in the current situation, but so does Stalinism (including Hoxhaism).

Well Hoxha just noted the revisionist tendencies of the post-Stalin USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Algeria (or any other "nationalist" socialist state), the Warsaw Pact states, etc., etc. "Hoxhaism" really only exists to the extent that a party agrees with Hoxha's analysis, because it isn't like "Hoxhaism" was promoted as an actually separate ideology (unlike Maoism).

Obviously an anarchist or left-communist would not actually support "Stalinism."

[Kiev Communard]

No one was saying that Zinoviev was a wonderful person either. The point is that, from the view of a left-communist/anarchist, there's nothing to learn from any of the Bolsheviks because none of them would have been radically different in how things would have been administered. (Of course much can be made on how they'd approach the construction of socialism, etc., but I'm talking in terms of state power)

After all, it was Lenin who was against the Workers' Opposition faction, so left-communists would be inclined to think anything he had to say on democracy would be in itself hypocritical too.

In the 1930's it was Stalin who pushed ahead with universal suffrage, multi-candidate party elections, and seriously considered multi-candidate elections for the Supreme Soviet among other democratizing measures (as Getty and Furr, who uses Getty as a source, have noted). Of course a left-communist could point towards any other policy and claim that Stalin wasn't genuine either.

Well Hoxha just noted the revisionist tendencies of the post-Stalin USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Algeria (or any other "nationalist" socialist state), the Warsaw Pact states, etc., etc. "Hoxhaism" really only exists to the extent that a party agrees with Hoxha's analysis, because it isn't like "Hoxhaism" was promoted as an actually separate ideology (unlike Maoism).

Obviously an anarchist or left-communist would not actually support "Stalinism."

I am not, strictly speaking, left communist (though I am to a certain extent influenced by Council Communism), but I don't think the problem with Stalinism was that Stalin "wasn't genuine either". More probably, he honestly believed that what he was doing would contribute to the establishment of socialist society in the USSR, the problem was that Stalinist idea of socialism as the industrial society run by centralized bureaucratic authority is flawed. As for "democratizing" measures of Stalin, even if he had instituted them, the power would have still been vested in Politbureau and other party-state bureaucratic bodies lacking any control "from below", so the parliamentary-like (not that I think that Stalinist Constitution would have really allowed multiple political factions in the Supreme Soviet) bodies would have still remained completely powerless, rubber-stamp institutions they were then.

[Lyev]

Because he was a counter-revolutionary fascist wrecker. I think any qualms with Trotsky as a person are mostly moot. He did call for political revolution, soviet democracy, and a bottom-up administration, as opposed to top-down bureaucracy but this hardly posed any real threat to the security of the USSR. And by the way, this is, of course, not "hate" for actvists who are least nominally "Trotskyist", or part of a Trotskyist organisation; what the ISO, IBT, IMT, CWI does today internationally in the 21st century really has nothing to do with how people criticise Trotsky personally for being "arrogant" and suchlike. And it is not so much that he posed a "threat" -- he was merely exercising his freedom to criticise. It is a sad indictment of the state of soviet democracy that the regime was so insecure and paranoid that he was kicked out of the CC and CPSU in 1928 and then by '29 was exiled to Turkey.

[Black Sheep]

Anarchists are hatin for Krostandt,and IMO they shouldn't.I can have some understanding of the reasons it happened.
Stalinists are hatin because they have double standards when it comes to USSR.

I love trotsky,and i'm an anarchist.

And it is not so much that he posed a "threat" -- he was merely exercising his freedom to criticise.

However the bureaucracy's knights in shining armor launched an icepick crusade, because the BAD trotsky said mean things about the motherland.

[Pavlov's House Party]

He did krondstat

He wasn't even present when the situation happened, he merely took responsibility for the attack, as any responsible leader should do.