Trotsky: Yay or nay?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I was reading the hypothetical "Whites Winning the Russian Civil War" thread, and it got me thinking a little about Leon Trotsky and his role in the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War and the creation of Trotskyism. I am intrigued of what people think of Leon Trotsky, in particular,

1) Marxists
2) Marxist-Leninists
3) Stalinists
4) Non-Marxists

I fall under the non-Marxist category, though I do lean towards the left. I think Leon Trotsky, like most revolutionary figures, was a mixture of things. He has been called a murderer, but he has also been called a hero. Some people think that the USSR would have been better under him, whilst others believe his goal of "worldwide revolution" was too unrealistic and resembled colonialism and imperialism, an idea despised by the majority of communists.

In short, he was like marmite. Yet, I still have mixed feelings about him, and I am not so sure.

What say you, NationStates? What do you think of Leon Trotsky?

[Western-Ukraine]

I would prefer Trotsky to Stalin as a libertarian. The main reason for that is that I believe USSR would have been weaker with him leading. Stalin was too strong and even today people have fond memories of him.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I would prefer Trotsky to Stalin as a libertarian. The main reason for that is that I believe USSR would have been weaker with him leading. Stalin was too strong and even today people have fond memories of him.

So, the USSR would have disbanded sooner?

[Western-Ukraine]

I would prefer Trotsky to Stalin as a libertarian. The main reason for that is that I believe USSR would have been weaker with him leading. Stalin was too strong and even today people have fond memories of him.

So, the USSR would have disbanded sooner?

Perhaps, the people would not have been pleased with a government not even able to keep itself up. The call for democracy might have come sooner.
Of course I can't tell if Trotsky would have been stronger or weaker in reality, but Stalin was obviously quite strong so it would have been hard to beat that.

[Allanea]

I'm a libertarian, but I think if you actually think that Communism is a good idea, then it makes sense to want to have a world revolution.

[Herskerstad]

I don't think Trotsky would be worse militarily, hell, I think he would be better and FAR more aggressive, which possibly could have ensured that the allies would warm up to Germany for a united front of their own.

Fortunately, he was killed prior to such a scenario. His militarized workforce concepts were also distopian and while not as paranoid as Stalin, probably would not endear himself much to history.

[Estenneous]

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I would've preferred Stalin to Trotsky for the simple reason that the USSR at the time was too weak, eronomically and politically, to carry out international revolution. Under Trotsky the USSR would surely have been crushed.

[Western-Ukraine]

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I would've preferred Stalin to Trotsky for the simple reason that the USSR at the time was too weak, eronomically and politically, to carry out international revolution. Under Trotsky the USSR would surely have been crushed.

So you would have preferred a strong country that doesn't care about the rights of its citizens?

[Jute]

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I would've preferred Stalin to Trotsky for the simple reason that the USSR at the time was too weak, eronomically and politically, to carry out international revolution. Under Trotsky the USSR would surely have been crushed.

So you would have preferred a strong country that doesn't care about the rights of its citizens?

Neither do you. You care about market rights and the rights of capitalists to exploit consumers, workers and employees.

[Western-Ukraine]

So you would have preferred a strong country that doesn't care about the rights of its citizens?

Neither do you. You care about market rights and the rights of capitalists to exploit consumers, workers and employees.

People don't have to work for anyone ever. You do what you want with your life. That is how capitalism respects human rights.

[Jute]

Neither do you. You care about market rights and the rights of capitalists to exploit consumers, workers and employees.

People don't have to work for anyone ever. You do what you want with your life. That is how capitalism respects human rights.

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

[Western-Ukraine]

People don't have to work for anyone ever. You do what you want with your life. That is how capitalism respects human rights.

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

I thought we were discussing Trotsky... We are swaying away from the topic already by arguing communism and capitalism.

[Jute]

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

I thought we were discussing Trotsky... We are swaying away from the topic already by arguing communism and capitalism.

Yes, but you said "capitalism respects human rights", and I responded to that.

[Western-Ukraine]

I thought we were discussing Trotsky... We are swaying away from the topic already by arguing communism and capitalism.

Yes, but you said "capitalism respects human rights", and I responded to that.

True, but let's get back on topic.

[Blakullar]

Neither do you. You care about market rights and the rights of capitalists to exploit consumers, workers and employees.

People don't have to work for anyone ever. You do what you want with your life. That is how capitalism respects human rights.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Anyway, no to Trotsky from me. He was far too much of an idealist to have been an effective leader of the USSR, and his promotion of world revolution would likely have ended badly for the Russian people: i.e. it's likely that literally everybody would have wanted him out of power. Though the alternative (i.e. Stalin) wasn't exactly the friendliest Soviet leader, he was easily the best fit for the job, for the simple reason that he was a realist. He understood that the Soviet Union had to metamorphose from a revolutionary territory into a functioning state if the revolution was to survive, and he carried out the task of transitioning the USSR to such with maximum effect.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm glad Stalin won the power struggle. Stalin might have been a monster, but at least his "socialism in one country" philosophy allowed the USSR to coexist with its neighbours for some time without open hostilities. Trotsky's commitment to spreading the revolution would have triggered the Second World War years earlier.

[Finland SSR]

People don't have to work for anyone ever. You do what you want with your life. That is how capitalism respects human rights.

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

Fun fact: While Western governments were putting up work regulation laws, acceptable minimum wages and other progressive work reforms, as well as getting rid of hard sweatshop labor in favor of automation, the things you describe were happening in the Soviet Union.

I mean, aside for the child labor, but even 19th century people were disgusted by it.

[The Ridings of Yorkshire]

If you condemn the Holocaust but if you don't believe in the Holodomor, you are a hypocrite.

[Wolfmanne2]

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

Fun fact: While Western governments were putting up work regulation laws, acceptable minimum wages and other progressive work reforms, as well as getting rid of hard sweatshop labor in favor of automation, the things you describe were happening in the Soviet Union.

I mean, aside for the child labor, but even 19th century people were disgusted by it.

Here's another one: In the United Kingdom, in 1979 the Labour Party was infiltrated by Trotskyists and kindly embraced by the hard left, who proceeded to rig the leadership election allowing political suicide advocate Michael Foot to win in 1980. After leading Labour to electoral disaster in 1983 despite widespread opposition to the Tories (combined the SDP/Liberal and Labour vote was far higher than the Tory vote), Labour fell into the political wilderness as we had to deal with a toxified image in the 1987 and 1992 until we got to 1997 where Blair was able to lead Labour to a landslide victory. All the while the Trotskyists and hard left were happy enough to ruin the image of the Labour Party by leading the miner's strike (without a ballot, thus making it illegal) and hijacking the Liverpool City Council, which for all intents and purposes allowed Liverpool to become a commune with a country.

I think you can figure out that I am not a big fan of Trotsky. Thatcher arguably might had torn apart British society, but that could had easily been averted if it wasn't for the Trotskyists and those who think Labour is more inspired by Marx than Methodism. The fact is that European countries under social democratic parties are far nicer places to live than in Eastern Bloc communist states, even if the Green Party and the Corbynistas (the new Militant Labour/Trotskyists) like to argue otherwise.

EDIT: By the way, I fall under the classification of a non-Marxist - more specifically, a social democrat leaning towards the right of the social democratic movement.

[Jute]

Exploitation of workers in sweatshops around the world for barely any pay at all, neglecting child labor laws and other health and safety regulation is totally respecting human rights.

Fun fact: While Western governments were putting up work regulation laws, acceptable minimum wages and other progressive work reforms, as well as getting rid of hard sweatshop labor in favor of automation, the things you describe were happening in the Soviet Union.

I mean, aside for the child labor, but even 19th century people were disgusted by it.

Well, good I have never been defending the Soviet Union, then? Point was that that is what laissez-faire capitalism would necessarily lead to, if it stayed unregulated.
By the way, Germany only made a minimum wage mandatory in 2015.

[Jute]

Fun fact: While Western governments were putting up work regulation laws, acceptable minimum wages and other progressive work reforms, as well as getting rid of hard sweatshop labor in favor of automation, the things you describe were happening in the Soviet Union.

I mean, aside for the child labor, but even 19th century people were disgusted by it.

Here's another one: In the United Kingdom, in 1979 the Labour Party was infiltrated by Trotskyists and kindly embraced by the hard left, who proceeded to rig the leadership election allowing political suicide advocate Michael Foot to win in 1980. After leading Labour to electoral disaster in 1983 despite widespread opposition to the Tories (combined the SDP/Liberal and Labour vote was far higher than the Tory vote), Labour fell into the political wilderness as we had to deal with a toxified image in the 1987 and 1992 until we got to 1997 where Blair was able to lead Labour to a landslide victory. All the while the Trotskyists and hard left were happy enough to ruin the image of the Labour Party by leading the miner's strike (without a ballot, thus making it illegal) and hijacking the Liverpool City Council, which for all intents and purposes allowed Liverpool to become a commune with a country.

I think you can figure out that I am not a big fan of Trotsky. Thatcher arguably might had torn apart British society, but that could had easily been averted if it wasn't for the Trotskyists and those who think Labour is more inspired by Marx than Methodism. The fact is that European countries under social democratic parties are far nicer places to live than in Eastern Bloc communist states, even if the Green Party and the Corbynistas (the new Militant Labour/Trotskyists) like to argue otherwise.

And now they're trying to make Labour in the UK more leftist again, so the cycle will repeat?
Anyway, I don't think the Green party advocates for Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of the East Bloc. (They certainly weren't communist, since by definition communism means a state- and classless society) The UK Greens advocate, as far as I know, for a gradual transition to socialism that is not state-controlled, but more syndicalist (directly controlled by unions, instead of managers or the state)

[MERIZoC]

Better than Stalin-ay.

[Jumalariik]

If you condemn the Holocaust but if you don't believe in the Holodomor, you are a hypocrite.

Yep.

Basically, communism and capitalism are both two prong enemies of nationalism and the collective of society and need to be destroyed together. So, Trotsky, though better than Stalin was an awful man and I'm glad he got picked in the head, I just wish it happened to Stalin and all the other bolsheviks too.

[Wolfmanne2]

If you condemn the Holocaust but if you don't believe in the Holodomor, you are a hypocrite.

Don't forget to add the Armenian Genocide. Just so we can piss of the Kemalists of course.

[L Ron Cupboard]

If I had to pick one Russian revolutionary, he'd be the one.