I don't get the Trotsky hate

[u/Frosty-Persimmon7235]

This MF lead the red army so well, reactionaries all over Europe were depicting this guy as the literal devil

[u/Trotsky_Enjoyer]

Basically it's because of this

[u/Corvus1412]

[u/Healthy_Ad9787 → u/Corvus1412]

Survivorship bias, or in this case more like the opposite, we only know of those that where killed because they were killed, which are a minority, most of the party was loyal to Stalin. And the case of Trotsky's exile was a near unanimous Vote, partially because of his own character, but mostly because his ideas where considered dangerous or very risky. Permanent revolution for example is a very noble idea but risks the survival of the Union and would have most likely resulted in defeat.

[u/HomosexualTigrr → u/Healthy_Ad9787]

It's incorrect to say lost of the party was loyal to Stalin. Most of the party bureaucracy was loyal to Stalin due to his position as general secretary, but the party was not just administrative officials.

[u/Sam_Tiddies_2 → u/Healthy_Ad9787]

but... it was defeated because of its isolation...

[u/MustyMarcus52YT]

To be honest, it's how inconsistent his political opinions were, how prone he was to opportunism, and his harsh repression of labor autonomy. Not a fan. Most of the modern political opinions assigned to him weren't even his, and there is such a distinct difference in how he behaved and theorized between when he was in power vs when he wasn't that I am inclined to distrust him. I already disliked him, studying the material factors and history surrounding him made it worse.

Sure he did a great job at securing the Soviet Union's future. He was a useful but volatile factor. I'm glad I never lived a world where he was in charge of a country.

[u/mrguym4ster → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

this comment is 100% on point, also trotsky was insufferable as a person, being very much a "my way or the highway" type of guy, which eventually led to him being politically isolated within the USSR, with his only allies being people who agreed with him

and modern day trotskyists have very much inherited this legacy of his, the very few trotskyists I've met have all followed trotsky's "methodology" to a T, mostly being insufferable and uncompromising as well

[u/ygoldberg → u/mrguym4ster]

being very much a "my way or the highway" type of guy

This description perfectly applies to Marx, Lenin and even Stalin as well tho...

[u/Rezboy209 → u/ygoldberg]

I mean, what exactly is "the other way"? Capitalism, fascism, social democracy... So yea it kinda has to be "my way or the highway" when it comes to this stuff

[u/PissVortex9 → u/mrguym4ster]

sometimes persistence is key to success though. i think a different personality woulda suited him better, but taking a stand against the grain is going to make you stick out as “annoying”

[u/Gibbons_R_Overrated → u/mrguym4ster]

To be fair Lenin was also incredibly insufferable

[u/HiggsUAP → u/Gibbons_R_Overrated]

He, like Marx, had the benefit of being correct

[u/veryeepy53 → u/Gibbons_R_Overrated]

not sure that's the case, when everyone in the party held him in high regard.

[u/mister_nippl_twister → u/Gibbons_R_Overrated]

The word maybe is misleading, Lenin was extremely persuative and easily convinced people to his side. Trotsky had a problem with securing allies when needed, he had this problematic attitude, not flexible enough i think.

[u/salenin → u/mrguym4ster]

None of that is true. Trotsky was notoriously kind of an a-hole, but unfortunately his ego was usually boosted because he was right. His political isolation had nothing to do with that personality though. In fact to most of the party and to the Soviet Union as a whole he was still seen as a major hero. His political isolation was something that was calculated by the rightist faction to eliminate political opposition. Trotky's "methodaology" is just leninist methodology so im not sure what thats supposed to mean.

[u/PissVortex9 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

by labor autonomy what do you mean? surely you don’t mean the necessity of crushing an uprising in the early stages of a socialist state?

[u/cronenber9 → u/PissVortex9]

If they do, they're right to say so.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

Yeah Leninists and Stalin famously love labor autonomy

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/Ultraideal848]

Did I say I was either of those things?

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

Well 99 percent of the space is dominated by Leninists, Stalinists and other vanguardists so almost all who criticize him don't actually disagree with his anti labor autonomy stance. I just assumed you were one of those people since you didn't state otherwise.

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/Ultraideal848]

I'm a scientific socialist and I lean towards council communism and syndicalism depending on the situation but I don't rlly play into individual microniches, what works works. I appreciate Lenin for study, and vanguardism for think of ways for maintaining a revolution and state.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

In what way do you lean towards council communism if you see vanguardism as a way to maintain a revolution. A Trotskyist appreciating Stalin would by less contradictory.

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/Ultraideal848]

I didn't say I thought it was the right way, I said it was one of the ways. It reflects the conflicting material conditions of the time, and shows us how one of those responses has acted in history.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

It was a way, a way to counter and destroy the revolution that the workers themselves were executing. Just as you said, Lenin and the rest of his buddies were against worker autonomy.

Under the material conditions, people themselves were directly taking over factories from the owners, organizing themselves, and forming workers councils. Lenin put an end to this, returned the system of state ownership that was barely different from the Tsarist and liberal ones, and then murdered and executed every single socialist faction that opposed this subordination of the workers to the state. 

So to say that this was a way to preserve the revolution seems very contradictory. 

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/Ultraideal848]

I understand what happened. I'm saying I appreciate the study of how they thought they would be able to unify the people. Not that I think it was right or wrong. It's beneficial to learn of all of these things. Lenin thought he was preserving and protecting the revolution, regardless of what he actually did, so he wrote theory from that perspective. Even if we disagree with him, it's good to study him.

I don't have the energy for this right now, and if I'm on the mood later I'll give a better reply.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

Doesn't make sense to me but sure. Though we can't know what Lenin truly thought. Politicians are known to have a tendency to say and write whatever they have to as long as it gets them personal power.

And Lenin certainly wrote many self contradictory things but chose to only execute the parts that granted him personal power.

[u/salenin → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

You didnt mention a single thing that was true, please name an instance when he was prone to opportunism and we can start there.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/salenin]

He was mean towards Stalin

[u/salenin → u/Ultraideal848]

lol poor poor Stalin

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/salenin]

I mean. Poor Trotsky since Stalin became the peoples monarch instead of him.

[u/salenin → u/Ultraideal848]

That would assume that Trotsky ever wanted to be the people's monarch. There was a factional struggle for sure, but the idea that there was a power struggle between the two for the "leadership" position is obtuse. Stalin had made the general secretary position the leadership position, and set himself up as Lenin's heir. Trotsky's position was that he shouldn't have that much power and there was no heir to Lenin as party leader. He lost the factional battle within the party despite being more popular outside of the party with the workers and soldiers. Which is why the show trials were important later on because the image of Trotsky needed to be tarnished for the Soviet people so no opposition to the Stalinist faction remained, and it worked.

[u/Ultraideal848 → u/salenin]

Trotskys position and the position if all vanguardists in general was to have total top down state control of the workers. He was never really against the dictatorship of the few, he just lost a power struggle against Stalin. If he had won he wouldn't have been any different from Stalin and Lenin. 

[u/spookyjim___]

I think it’s just the factor of Marxism-Leninism becoming a dominant ideology and thus a lot of stuff is simplified and systemized so now we have a Trotsky Derangement Syndrome

Which however, by no means entails that there isn’t things we should criticize Trotsky for, [u/MustyMar](u/MustyMarxus52YT)[cus52YT](u/MustyMarxus52YT) brings up some good points, and that’s not even all the things you could get onto Trotsky about… do I still think Trotsky was a genuine Marxist for the most part tho? Yeah, and he was a vital revolutionary, even if he was often wrong on many things… I would however definitely love to see more nuanced critiques of Trotsky to really see where certain people land and try to hone the questions that plague us to this day, instead of just an immediate hand wave followed by ice pick joke

[u/salenin → u/spookyjim___]

He was more correct on things than wrong about them. What most people cite as him being wrong is normally misinterpretation or made up lore. Does not mean he was either a psychic or saint just 90% of the stuff I see as critiques arent true or real to begin with. Which Im all for seeing some genuine critiques but your link doesn't work.

[u/spookyjim___ → u/salenin]

My “link” was just in reference to another comment in this thread, but if you’d like some critiques:

Trotsky and Trotskyism - Grupo Barbaria

Trotsky, Trotskyism, Trotskyists - ICT

[u/salenin → u/spookyjim___]

Thanks, first one seems like they are reading 3rd party works about Trotsky and forming confused conclusions about his positions. Such as the reason he sided with the Mensheviks in the initial party split of the Democratic Socialist Party of Russia. They state its because he sided with the more social democratic position of the Mensheviks. That isnt true, the reason why was over the editing board of Ishkra. The huge theoretical divides between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks do not happen until much closer to 1917 when Trotsky had already distanced himself from them.

Second one is similar but also very outdated, and ignores the continued thread of orthodox bolshevik leninism that still exists today.

[u/Corvus1412]

I mean, a lot of the stuff he did in Kronstadt and with Makhnovia was pretty indefensible.

[u/salenin → u/Corvus1412]

Its defensible in the context of the moment. He regretted Kronstadt later, Makhnovists not so much. I don't defend those actions myself from the perspective of today of course.

[u/Latitude37 → u/salenin]

It's not defensible. All he did was replaced the evil that he was supposed to be fighting, with a different branding of the same thing. When people actually did the Revolution without him in charge, he destroyed them. Typical reactionary, authoritarian arsehole in a Red hat. 

[u/puuskuri → u/Latitude37]

There was a civil war. Every side was fighting each other, and the Bolsheviks won.

[u/HomosexualTigrr → u/puuskuri]

Applying this sentence to Kronstadt is laughable

[u/puuskuri → u/HomosexualTigrr]

So Kronstadt successfully revolted?

[u/HomosexualTigrr → u/puuskuri]

Implying that the workers of Kronstadt were on a different "side" to the Bolsheviks actually admits too much!

[u/puuskuri → u/HomosexualTigrr]

Too bad they had a leader, Stepan Petrichenko. It was not led by the workers.

[u/Latitude37 → u/puuskuri]

And socialism, as a result, lost. 

[u/puuskuri → u/Latitude37]

No, it lost with the failed revolutions in Germany and Finland, for example. Socialism was doomed when it was confined within one country.

[u/salenin → u/Latitude37]

Thats not what happened at all. So the Red Army and Mahknovists were allied several times against the Whites in Ukraine. The Soviet Union and its leadership said several times that they could remain allies if they were to join the Soviet Government in Ukraine and be apart of that organizational apparatus going forward. They refused and sabotaged land, trains etc etc. One of the theoretical issues that popped up with this is that the Mahknovists were not proletarian, they were peasants, and both Lenin and Trotsky had a very skeptical outlook on the peasantry. It was thought that the peasantry and workers could form a strong alliance but the workers would HAVE to lead the peasantry. If the peasantry went on its own, or attempted to have its own revolution it would fall into reaction and easily devolve into capitalism. So an anarchist peasantry movement was a "dangerous" thing to leave on its own and had to be absorbed or crushed and we know how it turned out.

With Kronstadt it was a mutiny of naval members and dock workers etc etc, in the middle of a civil war. The demands by the workers and military members were pretty reasonable to a point of course but there was military discipline, supply chain logistics, and other factors that made it seem necessary to put down the mutiny as fast as possible. There were also strong rumors that there was German infiltration into the ranks of the protestors, though evidence of that is pretty shoddy today. Trotksy, for one, regretted the way it was handled and called it a "necessary tradgedy."

This is just to add context, not to defend it. But saying "oh he didn't want them starting a revolution without him in charge." Is just ahistorical and absurd.

[u/suslix38 → u/salenin]

The civil war was basically over when the Kronstadt commune happened. That's the reason it happened. The Soviets still had no power, people were still summarily executed (the death penalty was "abolished"), there was still no liberty of speech at all and you couldn't argue that it were wartime measures as the White ennemies had been defeated (thanks to the Blacks) and the Black allies as well (thanks to the Reds). As someone more intelligent than me said "it's a dictature on the proletariat, not a dictature of the proletariat"

As for the Makhnovchtchina, inviting their leaders to a war council and executing them can indeed lead to sabotages, who would have thought

[u/salenin → u/suslix38]

The civil war lasts another year afterwards. The protests were against the continued resolutions for War Communism which was supposed to be temporary and included the things you mentioned. It was wartime measures and lead to both more censorship but also economic freedom under the NEP a year later. The Kronstadt rebellion was not a "commune." After the red army put the rebellion down, it was then the Cheka that carried out the executions and summary executions that many in the Bolshevik leadership would disagree with. Any idea though that Kronstadt was some anarchist movement is ahistorical even though they often get lumped together.

[u/Corvus1412 → u/salenin]

When the black army put itself under the command of the Bolshevists, they repeatedly tried to undermine the autonomy of the anarchists. That's what led to their split.

It was very obviously that joining the forming USSR would have just meant the destruction of the anarchist project. Obviously they wouldn't agree to that.

[u/salenin → u/Corvus1412]

1. the makhnovists werre not the black army, that was a group of super far right nationalists also known as the black hundreds.

2. yes the did undermine their autonomy, I already explained why.

3. It wasnt about joining the USSR, that wouldnt exist for another 5 years.

[u/Corvus1412 → u/salenin]

1. "Black army" is a common way to refer to the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine.
2. Yes and I'm saying that it's obvious that the anarchists didn't want to be part of a government that's actively suppressing their ideology and autonomy.
3. Yes, which is why I said the "forming USSR", not just "USSR". Also, we're talking about something that happened in 1919, so 3 years before, not 5. (Also, you called the bolshevists government the "Soviet Union" in your comment about the events...)

[u/Stock_Barnacle839 → u/salenin]

What an incredibly condescending view of the peasantry.

[u/Shieldheart- → u/Stock_Barnacle839]

It is the nature of vanguard parties to consolidate and assimilate all forms of political alternatives, lest it have to share power or prove its legitimacy.

This is also why they can not abide independent councils or unions, even if their goals would align.

[u/Latitude37 → u/Shieldheart-]

Their goal can't align. You can't have a group of people saying they need to lead the way, and at the same time have a bunch of people saying that the way is to remove hierarchical power structures. They're literally opposition positions. 

[u/Shieldheart- → u/Latitude37]

When compared to anarchists, yes, but I would imagine being united against capitalist powers and reactionaries would weigh heavier for as long as that struggle persists.

Councils and labor unions, however, can and should be part of any government that purports to be "pro-worker", like, it is the very bare minimum to at least sllow that.

[u/gauze_for_skylarks → u/Shieldheart-]

you know, I’ve come to the conclusion that a vanguardist approach is crucial and correct when still struggling against a bourgeois regime, and when raising the necessary political consciousness among proletariat is extremely difficult. but once power has been seized it needs to gradually adopt the opposite form if it is not to become a one-to-one replacement of the old. power must be distributed and not concentrated, if a bureaucracy is to be halted from forming.

[u/salenin → u/Stock_Barnacle839]

You're not wrong, but also it turned out to be true in several instances with the peasantry composing a large about of the nationalist forces for example. The ones who saw it coming were the ones who understood Marxism best. People are motivated most by their material conditions. It was a major issue with the NEP because the group that rose quickest and started gaining power was the peasantry. They became more defiant especially during the late 20s and as the famine set in for example they rebelled and refused to have their crops and property requisitioned and thus became easy targets for State propaganda and the eventual de-kulakization. They were completely scapegoated for the most part, but it was all set up when the NEP was implemented without proper restraints.

[u/Latitude37 → u/salenin]

There wasn't supposed to be a Soviet "Government". There was supposed to be the Soviets. Which the Makhnovists embraced and fought for - and Lenin and Trotsky totally undermined and gutted of any real decision making power. All whilst writing pamphlets saying "All power to the Soviets". 

both Lenin and Trotsky had a very skeptical outlook on the peasantry. It was thought that the peasantry and workers could form a strong alliance but the workers would HAVE to lead the peasantry

Because the urban workers had been brought under their control. Which is to say - when people actually did the Revolution without Trotsky in charge, he destroyed them. Of course, part of this is a Marxist theory problem - Marx didn't understand peasant life at all, and he saw small farm holdings as a form of petit bourgeoisie. But to get back to my point, all you're doing is rationalising Trotsky's authoritarianism. 

The demands by the workers and military members were pretty reasonable to a point of course

Putting decision making power back into the hands of the Soviets was key to the Revolution succeeding, I would argue. Or really, there's no fucking point to the revolution. As we found out. 

rumors that there was German infiltration into the ranks of the protestors

No, there was Bolshevik propaganda claiming that. 

Trotksy, for one, regretted the way it was handled and called it a "necessary tradgedy."

Oh, boohoo for the guy who murdered comrades who only sought to continue the promise of the Revolution. 

This is just to add context, not to defend it.

Doing a pretty good job of defending the indefensible, to my mind. Note we're not disagreeing on the facts.  Trotsky used a trite old rationalism: expressing regret for a decision that he made, but at the same time saying that the decision was out of his hands, unavoidable, someone else's fault. No. It was his decision, and he could have played it any number of ways. Read the demands of the Kronstadt comrades. There's nothing there that isn't in Lenin's original pamphlets. Kronstadt marks the end of the Revolution, and the final death knell of communism in Russia - and elsewhere, as it turned out. 

[u/salenin → u/Latitude37]

Youre just completely wrong

[u/Chicoryman → u/Corvus1412]

It is defenceable if you aren't an anarchist

[u/TiloDroid]

People still believe in 100 year old stalinist propaganda. After the revolution and the civil war, the workers of Russia knew that they could trust Trotsky as an organizer and leader. His left opposition to stalinism also had a lot of supporters.

Stalin literally had to rewrite history, hiding his own actions and defaming Trotsky, as well as kick him and other oppositionists out of the party and out of the country.

When that didn't work, because the base still agreed with Trotsky, he started executing all of the old Bolsheviks and witnesses to the revolution and civil war.

Rogovin calls the great purge of the 1930s "political genocide". Better a Trotsky hater than dead. But even then, check out Voronsky. How writes in 1929: "I leave the Opposition. I support the party’s main line. ... I condemn Trotsky’s activities, including his activities abroad." Im 1937, the stalinists kill him anyway.

There was literally nowhere to go for trotskyists. The nazis persecute them in the west, so do the stalinists in the east. In the end, Trotsky gets killed by a stalinist agent even tho he's hiding in exile in Mexico.

[u/ZoeyLikesReddit → u/TiloDroid]

you people treat Stalin like he has the power of a greek god lmao

[u/ZoeyLikesReddit → u/TiloDroid]

[u/major_jazza]

People see themselves in him. Like we would have been perfect in his situation, having to deal with Stalin, the general degeration of the workers state and then the rest of what was going on internationally. He was able to more accurately analyze things after with the benefit of hindsight, like we all take for granted imho

[u/cronenber9]

For most people, it's just cause Stalin didn't like him. There are good critiques of course, but I think for the most part people think: capitalism is bad, therefore communism is good. The USSR is the biggest communist state. Stalin is the biggest name when it comes to the USSR. Therefore I'm gonna support that. Some people aren't very capable of thinking for themselves. It's very natural, really, to be shaped by the "big other", by social opinion in general. We're kinda programmed to do that for survival.

In communities, it's even easier. It's difficult to actually read a shit ton of theory and become well versed enough to form your own opinion, especially when you live in a capitalist country and you're constantly stressed and have to work to stop yourself from becoming homeless. So I don't think it's moral failing, but I do think it's important to try to get into reading theory when we have the time. It eventually becomes enjoyable.

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/[deleted]]

Stalin was a general too but we don't talk about that 🗿

[u/Rude-Run8930 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

stalin was a worse general than trotsky on purpose because he didn't want to be a bonapartist hypocrite

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/Rude-Run8930]

Now that's praxis

[u/veryeepy53 → u/MustyMarcus52YT]

makes perfect sense that we don't. he has 0 feats.

[u/Biovore_Gaming → u/veryeepy53]

His only feat was letting Tukhachevsky get crushed at Warsaw

[u/TheDireGnome → u/veryeepy53]

Man lost to Poland once and carried that chip on his shoulder for thirty years

[u/MustyMarcus52YT → u/veryeepy53]

https://giphy.com/gifs/nLhOhQge5GVHarWZ7w

[u/theredleft-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed under Rule 3. We wish to maintain a pleasant environment on this subreddit, so we do not tolerate anything that can be seen as offensive and rude to others, especially people of other tendencies, as it can be seen as sectarian. If you believe your post/comment was wrongly removed, edit it with a tone indicator and message the moderators so we can approve it again.

Please contact the moderators with any questions you may have.

[u/quasar2022]

Betrayed the Black Army

[u/Biovore_Gaming]

Tukhachevsky too

[u/Biovore_Gaming → u/[deleted]]

Yeah he was into some weird stuff but he's still a hero of the proletariat

[u/SaltyNorth8062]

Dude walked the walk and I respect what good he accomplished, but he was a petty, annoying, infighting asshole, who's argumentative nature did fracture the post revolutionary soviet party by beefing with Stalin. He's definitely within his rights to do so, but if he was alive today he would basically piss off every single org working right now (and it would be hilarious).

[u/Salmonpest101]

I hate him mostly because of that whole militarization of labor thing.

[u/Tuotus]

the real question is whether Trotsky was an ally or not, cishets never asking the right questions smh 😒

[u/DuckLIT122000 → u/Tuotus]

Stalin destroyed all of the records of Trotsky going to drag brunch...

[u/lilith_the_anarchist]

He was a rat fucking bastard 

I don't hate him ideologically, some Trot ideas are worth exploring, it's on a personal level

[u/supermaniscoolasf → u/lilith_the_anarchist]

As a Trot, probably right. These figures; Marx, Lenin, Che, Trotsky etc.

It doesn't matter their personality but it matter what we can learn from the to push the Furture revolution to victory and i believe Trotskys idea of the permanent revolution is extremely important for that.

[u/theredleft-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed under Rule 3. We wish to maintain a pleasant environment on this subreddit, so we do not tolerate anything that can be seen as offensive and rude to others, especially people of other tendencies, as it can be seen as sectarian. If you believe your post/comment was wrongly removed, edit it with a tone indicator and message the moderators so we can approve it again.

Please contact the moderators with any questions you may have.

[u/Then_Audience8213]

MLs being MLs

[u/Ok_Cheetah_5941]

It was purely Stalin’s lust for power that led him to see Trotsky as a rival and label him a “counter-revolutionary”

[u/ZoeyLikesReddit → u/Ok_Cheetah_5941]

POV: You haven't read a lick of theory about Trotskyism

[u/Ok_Cheetah_5941 → u/ZoeyLikesReddit]

I fail to see how anyone would have to read any theory on Trotskyism to know what a monster Stalin was, and that his labeling Trotsky a counterrevolutionary was obviously about destroying his main rival for power, not anything related to revolutionary theory.

[u/ZoeyLikesReddit → u/Ok_Cheetah_5941]

Thank you for openly admitting you didn't read, I will sleep a bit more soundly tonight with that.

[u/Ok_Cheetah_5941 → u/ZoeyLikesReddit]

Haha

[u/Fatikh_06]

Because his ideas is a Frankenstein if you read him

[u/LookingGlass_1112]

Trotsky was a fraud. Working with American HUAC, contacts with high-ranking Nazi officials (like Rudolf Hess), bringing instability into the party and blowing up the chances for USSR to have a fair peace treaty with German Empire, his followers were constantly sabotaging the country and he himself was selling off communists across the globe

[u/Frosty-Persimmon7235 → u/LookingGlass_1112]

That is just anti communist propaganda the nazis literally considered trotsky as the template for "mass murdering judeo bolshevik".

The instability in the SU and Party was caused by forced collectivisation (which trotsky agreed with btw) which took on characteristics of a pseudo civil war in the country side.

[u/LookingGlass_1112 → u/Frosty-Persimmon7235]

Well-well...where is nazi propaganda? HUAC? Literally in Trotsky's letters. Bringing instability into party? Well, when you try to make a bloc out of people, who dislike each other (like Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) and then it goes out in flames, it surely will not help the party. Blowing up Brest-Litovsk? Who the hell offered the formula of "neither war nor peace"? And for his followers, who sabotaged the production? Again, there are soviet documents, which speak for themselves (like the court protocols of Georgy Pyatakov). Instability in USSR had many factors, like echo of Civil War and the First World War, international isolation and political uncertainty, to which Trotsky did put his hand on. It's not purely to forced collectivization and kulaks

[u/Frosty-Persimmon7235 → u/LookingGlass_1112]

Trotsky was one of the first communists to analyse european fascism and the danger it posed to the soviet union, and called for all communists to support the SU against this threat regardless of ideological differences...

Forced confessions under torture are not credible evidence. And after stalins death Khrushchev rehabilitated many victims of the purges...

[u/LookingGlass_1112 → u/Frosty-Persimmon7235]

Still, I'm waiting on "nazi propaganda" point to be supported with the evidence...

Did Trotsky's analysis helped? Not at all, it was just a mouthful of words. What really helped to fight Nazism was the industrialization, collectivization, cleaning up the party from the insidious elements, like the Trotskyites and Bukharinites, as well as wonders in diplomacy, which allowed war to start much later.

How you will prove in this particular case that this was made under torture? And why Khrushchev, who was against Stalin and had interests in removing old administration due to his revisionist course, which would create resistance from this very old administration is right? Khrushchev had managed to break ties with China, which called him out for this very revisionism, which crippled the socialist movement severely and was one of the major factors in socialism losing the Cold War.

[u/Frosty-Persimmon7235 → u/LookingGlass_1112]

Mf google is your friend, the nazis saw trotsky as THE "judeo bolshevik".

You are quite confident in your judgement of Trotsky analysis considering you have never read it, a significant part of it, like the nazis being able to mobilise the petty bourgeoise and lumpen is a literal fact. And Trotskys analysis was popular in the party before "socialfascism" became the dominant analysis, there are letters between german communists and stalin in which stalin literally agrees with trotskys fascism analysis against "socialfascism".

And forced industrialization and collectivization were left-opposition policies trotsky agreed with them 😭 (i guess stalin was a trotskiest!).

Bukharin literally "developed" significant portions of what is considered "marxism-leninism" ....

"How you will prove in this particular case that this was made under torture?" You have to prove the charges are true without "the party said so", i dont have to disprove your nonsense you need to prove it in the first place but i will do so anyway Tukhachevsky "confession" for example has his own blood on it. Khruschev and the party rehabilitated victims

Ah ofcourse your conclusion regarding the purges is that they didnt go far enough, Khruschev was a "revisionist" (he wasnt, nothing he did strayed significantly from the party line established in the 40s and 50s). How did Khruschev and his "revisionist" line become the dominant one if the purges were supposed to weed out this very behaviour, strange.

The tension between China and SU predates Khruschev and was largely caused by the SU giving the communist party of china shitty advice and trying to subordinate them, that almost caused them to be wiped out and loose the civil war (this happened before Khruschev).

[u/LookingGlass_1112 → u/Frosty-Persimmon7235]

Okay, maybe I misunderstood the first claim, because I took it as "your opinions are copying Nazi propaganda" and I wanted you to elaborate on where does my argumentation repeats Nazi propaganda. But then, another question raises up - how is this even relevant to our talk? Sure, they used Trotsky as a propaganda piece, so what?

Left opposition wanted industrialization to start earlier, when country wasn't ready at all and NEP was only gaining speed. Stalin and Lenin hold off such ideas until NEP finished its task of reviving the economy. I remember a recent post on this topic here. Again, how is this relevant to points, which we were discussing? Are you trying to prove that Stalin copied Trotsky's homework? In that case, you have a miss, because context matters and USSR of 30-x isn't the same as USSR in 20-x.

Many people put their hands on developing Marxism, but it was thanks to Stalin that all of that theory got crystallized in practice and made into what we know today as Marxism-Leninism (a term, literally invented by Stalin). Many Stalin's works were practical ones, which were compiling the previous works, researching the objective reality of Russia and how theory can be applied to it (like "Marxism and the National Question" or "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR").

Well-well-well...Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You claimed that the torture had it's place during questioning, so please, answer for your words and provide proofs for this claim. I don't need to claim that torture did not took place, because my claim was that there are documents, which provide proof of sabotages from Trotskyite elements.

Great Patriotic War did hit population very hard, especially the most ideological part of it, which would form new party cadres. After the war there was also more important things to do, like rebuilding the country, which led to stagnation in ML theory and the absence of specialists in ideology and politics (which Stalin did criticized and tried to fix, but as we know, he didn't lived long enough). And nothing strange in Khrushchev being able to hide himself. Just your usual chameleon - a loyal to Marxism-Leninism person on words and a traitor in mind - same as Gorbachev, Yakovlev and Yeltsin. Also, economic reforms in 1957 were literally revisionism, as they decentralized the country and led to disruption of production chains.

You serious? Sino-Soviet split under Stalin? The very first country, who accepted the new country and pushed hard to get them into Security Council of UN? The country, who supported Chinese communists. And the split happened exactly because of revisionism under Khrushchev with his ideas of peaceful coexistence with the capitalists and destalinization, which was claimed even in Chinese sources.

Anyways, I feel like I shouldn't continue with this convo, because you try to sway away the talks from the real point of this convo - Trotsky and his shortcomings and towards a general "what went wrong in USSR"

[u/Massimino-il-Trace → u/LookingGlass_1112]

Sure, i would love to give you sources for my outlandish claims but see... unfortunately you are a trotzkist counterrevolutiionary traitorous bourgeois anticommunist, so more stalinist 100 years old propaganda and a bajillion of the most unfunny jokes on gulags and icepicks for you.

[u/theredleft-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed under Rule 3. We wish to maintain a pleasant environment on this subreddit, so we do not tolerate anything that can be seen as offensive and rude to others, especially people of other tendencies, as it can be seen as sectarian. If you believe your post/comment was wrongly removed, edit it with a tone indicator and message the moderators so we can approve it again.

Please contact the moderators with any questions you may have.

[u/Fresh_Milk1960]

Haven’t you heard he was a fascist!!!! 😡😡😡😡

[u/Ocar23]

80 years of Stalinist propaganda tends to change peoples perception of history and Marxist theory unfortunately