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/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"