Trotsky: Yay or nay?

[The Arab Baath Socialist Party]

I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.
Joseph Stalin

In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.
Joseph Stalin

[The Arab Baath Socialist Party]

Noooooooooooooooo. Trotsky was an opportunist. He declared that Lenin was a "professional exploiter of every kind of backwardness in the Russian working-class movement”, and went on to say that the “entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay." And then later went on to portray himself as the sole heir of Leninism.

He took up the fundamental idea of the Mensheviks that socialism was impossible to build in Russia. His theory of Permanent Revolution was essentially defeatism and contradicts Lenin's thesis that socialism=soviet power+ electrification. As Stalin pointed out "what is permanent revolution in its Trotskyist interpretation? It is revolution that fails to take the poor peasantry into account as a revolutionary force. Trotsky's "permanent" revolution is, as Lenin said, "skipping" the peasant movement, "playing at the seizure of power." Why is it dangerous? Because such a revolution, if an attempt had been made to bring it about, would inevitably have ended in failure, for it would have divorced from the Russian proletariat its ally, the poor peasantry. This explains the struggle that Leninism has been waging against Trotskyism ever since 1905." Proposing to invade every country even when they Re not ready for socialism is crazy adventurism but this is what Troskiest argue

Not only that but Trostsky railed against party unity with his August Bloc. Lenin rightly pointed out "Actually, under cover of high-sounding, empty, and obscure phrases that confuse the non-class-conscious workers, Trotsky is defending the liquidators by passing over in silence the question of the “underground”, by asserting that there is no liberal-labour policy in Russia, and the like."

The fact of the matter is Trosky was a saboteur and a wrecker. He did everything he could to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat and grow a fitful column in the USSR. His supporters cheered on the fall of communism and every counter revolutionary uprising sch as the one in Hungary in 1956. Stalin was the faithful and fearless friend of the proletariat. Under his leadership the USSR saved humanity from fascism and expanded the dictatorship of the proletarait.

Lenin and Trotsky worked together Ron the ideology of permanent revolution ...

[The Wolven League]

I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.
Joseph Stalin

In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.
Joseph Stalin

We don't need to spam BrainyQuote in order to realize that Stalin said a lot of shit to make him look better.

Speaking of, I just looked up Stalin quotes on BrainyQuote and under related authors I got Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and MLK. wtf.

[Daburuetchi]

Despite being anti-commie I'll jump into this.

Trotsky was Lenin's chosen heir. While I might agree USSR wouldn't be as ruthless under him as it was under Stalin, I think the Soviets would be equally fearless.

Let's not forget, Trotsky led the Red Army to victory in the civil war. USSR would still be strong and communist but not as isolationist and therefore more vulnerable to good relations with the west and democratic influence.

Lol no he was not. Even Trotsky stated `Eastman ( the man who published the will) says that the Central Committee `concealed' from the Party ... the so-called `will,' ... there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party .... Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any `will,' and the very character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of such a `will.' What is usually referred to as a `will' in the émigré and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter .... All talk about concealing or violating a `will' is a malicious invention.'

How the hell would the Soviet Union have good relations with the west when Trotsky's plan was TO INVADE ALL COUNTRIES. Not only that but the west in the civil war showed it did not want to be friends with the USSR By invading them

[The Arab Baath Socialist Party]

In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.
Joseph Stalin

We don't need to spam BrainyQuote in order to realize that Stalin said a lot of shit to make him look better.

Speaking of, I just looked up Stalin quotes on BrainyQuote and under related authors I got Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and MLK. wtf.

It's not exactly like there is any other source out there that doesn't bias everything he says

[The Arab Baath Socialist Party]

Despite being anti-commie I'll jump into this.

Trotsky was Lenin's chosen heir. While I might agree USSR wouldn't be as ruthless under him as it was under Stalin, I think the Soviets would be equally fearless.

Let's not forget, Trotsky led the Red Army to victory in the civil war. USSR would still be strong and communist but not as isolationist and therefore more vulnerable to good relations with the west and democratic influence.

Lol no he was not. Even Trotsky stated `Eastman ( the man who published the will) says that the Central Committee `concealed' from the Party ... the so-called `will,' ... there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party .... Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any `will,' and the very character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of such a `will.' What is usually referred to as a `will' in the émigré and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter .... All talk about concealing or violating a `will' is a malicious invention.'

How the hell would the Soviet Union have good relations with the west when Trotsky's plan was TO INVADE ALL COUNTRIES. Not only that but the west in the civil war showed it did not want to be friends with the USSR By invading them

Permanent revolution you know the ideology lenin adopted =\= invading countries

[The Arab Baath Socialist Party]

Despite being anti-commie I'll jump into this.

Trotsky was Lenin's chosen heir. While I might agree USSR wouldn't be as ruthless under him as it was under Stalin, I think the Soviets would be equally fearless.

Let's not forget, Trotsky led the Red Army to victory in the civil war. USSR would still be strong and communist but not as isolationist and therefore more vulnerable to good relations with the west and democratic influence.

Lol no he was not. Even Trotsky stated `Eastman ( the man who published the will) says that the Central Committee `concealed' from the Party ... the so-called `will,' ... there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party .... Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any `will,' and the very character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of such a `will.' What is usually referred to as a `will' in the émigré and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter .... All talk about concealing or violating a `will' is a malicious invention.'

How the hell would the Soviet Union have good relations with the west when Trotsky's plan was TO INVADE ALL COUNTRIES. Not only that but the west in the civil war showed it did not want to be friends with the USSR By invading them

Let's not forget it was only khruschevs idea to be freinds with the imperialists

[Daburuetchi]

Lenin and Trotsky worked together Ron the ideology of permanent revolution ...

Ummm no Results and Prospects, one of his major texts on permanent revolution first published in 1906 and republished In his 1919 preface.

According to Lenin, peasants would work initially as individual producers, although the State would encourage them towards cooperation. By regrouping the peasants, they could be integrated into the socialist economy. Lenin rejected the Menshevik argument that the peasant population was too barbaric and culturally backward to understand socialism. Now, said Lenin, that we have the power of the dictatorship of the proletariat, what is to prevent us from effecting among this `barbaric' people a real cultural revolution?

This idea is in direct contradiction of Trotsky's that the peasants are too backward to accept socialism. That is the backbone of the theory of permanent revolution and Lenin disagrees

[Daburuetchi]

Permanent revolution you know the ideology lenin adopted =\= invading countries

“At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”

— V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 20. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 346.

Lenin did not agree

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Stalin was the faithful and fearless friend of the proletariat. Under his leadership the USSR saved humanity from fascism and expanded the dictatorship of the proletarait.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Do you even understand what the hell you are saying? Stalin was a dictator, not a friend of the proletarian class. Also, the USSR saving humanity? Are you shitting in my milk? The USSR only bred cruelty and humiliation to millions and millions of Eastern European lives. That is something which, relating to the OP, would have happened anyway under Trotsky. He orchestrated the Revolution. He was no stranger to murder and coercion, and it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker and the Soviet Union would have collapsed even sooner. For that, I wish he did become a leader so that less lives were destroyed.

Let's not forget it was only khruschevs idea to be freinds with the imperialists

Wow, for an ideology all about equality between the classes, there's a lot of division and bitching and moaning. You pointing the finger of blame does nothing, Mr. Arab Baath Socialist Party. Wow, you support Saddam Hussein? I bet you have a massive set of propaganda posters of Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and Joseph Stalin to match your political leanings.

[Daburuetchi]

While I might agree USSR wouldn't be as ruthless under him as it was under Stalin,

...

Actually, both Lenin and Trotsky advocated for a similar sort of repression and violence in their works as happened in the SU under Stalin. After all, how else will you make two hundred million people work in slave-like labor?

Just adding my unneeded and useless trivia that may not even be targeted to the quoted person.

Right because the USSR had the apparatus in place to somehow make two hundred million people work, according to historian Lynne Viola

`The state ruled by circular, it ruled by decree, but it had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or to ensure correct implementation of its policy in the administration of the countryside .... The roots of the Stalin system in the countryside do not lie in the expansion of state controls but in the very absence of such controls and of an orderly system of administration, which, in turn, resulted as the primary instrument of rule in the countryside.'

But of course nobody volunteered or did anything voluntary in the evil Soviet Union

[Memell]

As a former marxist, yuck.

In the past, Trotsky certainly did exert its influence on me for a certain period of time, given that he ose favoured by Lenin in his succession, and that he may have been more libertarian (coming from the mensheviks).

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Actually, both Lenin and Trotsky advocated for a similar sort of repression and violence in their works as happened in the SU under Stalin. After all, how else will you make two hundred million people work in slave-like labor?

Just adding my unneeded and useless trivia that may not even be targeted to the quoted person.

Right because the USSR had the apparatus in place to somehow make two hundred million people work, according to historian Lynne Viola

`The state ruled by circular, it ruled by decree, but it had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or to ensure correct implementation of its policy in the administration of the countryside .... The roots of the Stalin system in the countryside do not lie in the expansion of state controls but in the very absence of such controls and of an orderly system of administration, which, in turn, resulted as the primary instrument of rule in the countryside.'

But of course nobody volunteered or did anything voluntary in the evil Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was pretty bad, m8. People only volunteered if they knew they were going to be killed if they didn't. It was a culture of fear, terror and coercion.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

As a former marxist, yuck.

In the past, Trotsky certainly did exert its influence on me for a certain period of time, given that he ose favoured by Lenin in his succession, and that he may have been more libertarian (coming from the mensheviks).

Glad you found your way out of Marxism.

[Memell]

As a former marxist, yuck.

In the past, Trotsky certainly did exert its influence on me for a certain period of time, given that he ose favoured by Lenin in his succession, and that he may have been more libertarian (coming from the mensheviks).

[The Grey Wolf]

Despite being a Fascist, I admire Trotsky a lot. Not sure how well he'd do, but doubt he'd be as paranoid and megalomaniacal as Stalin.

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.

Compared to the alternatives, sweatshops are pretty decent.

[Memell]

As a former marxist, yuck.

In the past, Trotsky certainly did exert its influence on me for a certain period of time, given that he ose favoured by Lenin in his succession, and that he may have been more libertarian (coming from the mensheviks).

Glad you found your way out of Marxism.

I´m glad, too.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Glad you found your way out of Marxism.

I´m glad, too.

What made you change your mind?

[Daburuetchi]

Stalin was the faithful and fearless friend of the proletariat. Under his leadership the USSR saved humanity from fascism and expanded the dictatorship of the proletarait.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Do you even understand what the hell you are saying? Stalin was a dictator, not a friend of the proletarian class. Also, the USSR saving humanity? Are you shitting in my milk? The USSR only bred cruelty and humiliation to millions and millions of Eastern European lives. That is something which, relating to the OP, would have happened anyway under Trotsky. He orchestrated the Revolution. He was no stranger to murder and coercion, and it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker and the Soviet Union would have collapsed even sooner. For that, I wish he did become a leader so that less lives were destroyed.

Let's not forget it was only khruschevs idea to be freinds with the imperialists

Wow, for an ideology all about equality between the classes, there's a lot of division and bitching and moaning. You pointing the finger of blame does nothing, Mr. Arab Baath Socialist Party. Wow, you support Saddam Hussein? I bet you have a massive set of propaganda posters of Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and Joseph Stalin to match your political leanings.

1)Baathist are fascistic and liquidated any communist within Iraq and Syria and have nothing to do with communism. 2) the Soviet Union destroyed 80% of the Nazi Army. wihout the efforts of the Soviet Union nazi Germany's surely would have established a foot hold in Latin America so yes the USSR did save humanity. People during the time period thought so http://i.imgur.com/6eUoctT.png. They also liberated numerous concentration camps 3) The USSR eliminated illiteracy, increase life expectancy, industrialized in 15 and become and scientific superpower. On the eve of the October Revolution something like 80% of the population were peasants. By 1939 soviet industrial production lagged only behind Germany, they did a lot more than humilaite the peoples of Eastern Europe.

[Daburuetchi]

Glad you found your way out of Marxism.

I´m glad, too.

Because the 2008 economic crisis of capitalism, third world debt and rising global inequality dis validate Marxism?

[Memell]

I´m glad, too.

What made you change your mind?

I can´t find a single defining event, it was a evergoing process (for someone that used to identify as a Stalinist, it couldn´t have been a sudden "snap").

But to answer your question: the disastrous policies of immigration in Europe, the undeniable superiority of mild capitalism over state-imposed socialism, my growing technocratic attitude ( completely opposed to the classic marxist interpretation of economics, which at best is fit for 1920´s societies), growing contempt for "Cultural Leftism/Marxism", which is now more than ever just a political-correctness race and an aesthetic facade, other than being a doctrine that bends facts, not facts that create an ideology.

These the most important points.

[Daburuetchi]

I´m glad, too.

What made you change your mind?

Probably this
it flies in the face of Marxism and in. And on no way directly impacts people. Yep feels good to be a worker in this day and age

[Daburuetchi]

Right because the USSR had the apparatus in place to somehow make two hundred million people work, according to historian Lynne Viola

`The state ruled by circular, it ruled by decree, but it had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or to ensure correct implementation of its policy in the administration of the countryside .... The roots of the Stalin system in the countryside do not lie in the expansion of state controls but in the very absence of such controls and of an orderly system of administration, which, in turn, resulted as the primary instrument of rule in the countryside.'

But of course nobody volunteered or did anything voluntary in the evil Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was pretty bad, m8. People only volunteered if they knew they were going to be killed if they didn't. It was a culture of fear, terror and coercion.

Again the USSR did not not have that good of a control over the countryside. How can they suppress a country of 175 million if there are only a couple thousand communist peasants and soldiers in the 1920s Stalin specifically decreed that no one should be antagonized to join collective farms. He even crtiziced abuses in Dizzy With Success. But of course muh coercion

[The New Sea Territory]

I dislike him. He was responsible for crushing the Kronstadt Rebellion and launching a smear campaign that justified crushing the Free Territory.

[Trotskylvania]

Trotsky, like all the Old Bolsheviks, is a mixed bag. Like Lenin, he is great and terrible in equal measure.

I dislike his attempts to militarize labor in the early Soviet Union, though given the conditions I can understand why. His role in crushing the Kronstadt mutiny is unforgiveable, and knowingly or not, his politics of the state of emergency ultimately killed the hope for soviet democracy in the Soviet Union.

He was much more constructive with dissent than Stalin was, and his whole opposition to the Stalinist state terror machine was an act of immense political courage.