Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
 10 Jan 2012, 01:30
Hey comrades! It seems that one of the largest splits between communists is in the opinions about Trotsky and Stalin. Both had different views and very different legacies.
So, I'm sort of on the fence on this debate. I would like to fix that. So I'm calling onto you Stalinists and you Trotskyists to not only tell me why your views are right and the other's are wrong. Fighting out of the blue corner, Uncle Joe, the man of steel, Josef Staaaaaaaaalin! Fighting out of the red corner, pen-name Lvov, leader of the Red Army, Leeeeeeeeeon Trotsky! Begin! 10 Jan 2012, 04:08
Don't worry too much ... we don't need to put these two in a cage together for the sparks to start flying.
Just stick around for a little while and there'll be plenty of Stalin-on-Trotsky action before very long. 10 Jan 2012, 16:15
Arguably the splits at the 1st Internationale, 2nd Internationale, Sino-Soviet, Prague Spring and fall of the USSR has much larger repercussions than the Stalin/Trotsky arguments. Both sides tend to complain about the application of Leninism to the USSR (no major ideological difference). They'll bicker about how correctly democratic centralism was applied in the USSR or how to carry out internationalism; however, they both believe in the same ideas.
 "Don't hate on me bro" - Loz 
Soviet cogitations: 5532
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Embalmed 10 Jan 2012, 16:42
Essentially they do, R-R, however one of the biggest concerns I have is about the Trotskyists I have come to know personally so far in life like to categorically deny that a planned economy necessarily brings into being a group of specialists who should co-ordinate production, and would rather bat away any question about what a "democratically planned economy" looks like by saying "democratically planned"! Arguing minutiae of silly "ideological" differences really misses the issue of trying to work out how a workable model of socialism could be applied to this or that society. I honestly don't care about the Stalin/Trotsky "rift" beyond finding it an amusing sideline to hear the endless stream of synonymous words being used as antonyms.
In a fight, I would say Stalin would win, he had first hand experience of beating people up, holding places up - a real cowboy. I also assume you mean the Stalin and Trotsky of 1920.  "Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx 11 Jan 2012, 00:28
Even though I don't consider myself a Stalinist, I will defend Uncle Joe for this match. I'm an opponent to Trotskyism for a few practical reasons :
- I believe that the theory of a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" was not "exhausted by history" (Trotsky, Permanent revolution, 1931). - I believe that the strategy of Popular fronts was a good thing, while trotskyists opposed it. - Trotsky's aim was to overthrown the Soviet government. I can't accept it. - I can't accept either what trotskyists did during the war, when some of them openly collaborated, and some others spoke about "revolutionary defeatism".  "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 11 Jan 2012, 00:39
OP-Bagration wrote:Since when? You've been posting like a 1930's Stalinist for a while now. OP-Bagration wrote:So you're judging him by what some people that were associated with him did - after he was dead? OP-Bagration wrote:Was the third period good policy too then? edit... never mind ... these things just go in circles ... I don't even care today. 11 Jan 2012, 02:40
Quote: When it comes to the 1930's, I'm quite a stalinist indeed. Quote: I'm judging him by the political consequences of his thought. I have good reasons to believe that the mistakes done by some trotskyists during the war was the consequence of what Trotsky said just before the war. Quote: We do not speak about a "third period", which is Trotsky's word, but about the "united front" and "class against class" tactics. At the time the Comintern analyzed the international situation and thought that we were entering a period of revolutionary counter-offensive for the working class. We had to organize a front of the working class, but we refused to adopt a sectarian orientation. For example, we proposed to the Socialist party (opportunist social-democrat party) an agreement according to wich both parties would stand down in favor of the other on the second round of the 1928 parliamentary elections. We also proposed to reunify the trade unions. "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 11 Jan 2012, 03:15
So there seems to be quite a bit of support for Stalin here. I've always been puzzled by this though. Do most Communists reject that Stalin was a mass-murderer? Or do they ignore it and focus on the end results of his policies? Or do they believe that he didn't mean to kill however many people?
What about Mao and Pol Pot? Most sites I go to concerning Marxism are firmly pro-Trotskyist, and spit on Stalin's name as what they call created "a totalitarian mess". What do you guys think? 11 Jan 2012, 04:34
Das_ALoveStory wrote:If you look hard enough you can find support for almost anything on the internet. Das_ALoveStory wrote:There are a couple of responses which roughly follow your guesses: 1. He didn't know 2. The numbers are falsified 3. They were actually almost all genuine enemies of the state (I think it's possible to agree that all three of these reasons have some validity while still thinking that Stalin isn't someone we should be defending.) Das_ALoveStory wrote:Mao has quite a few fans, but fewer than Stalin. I know there are MTWist sites around, but I don't know of any traditional Maoist sites (like SE). I don't recall seeing anyone defend Pol Pot on SE. Das_ALoveStory wrote:As I was saying, I really don't think Communists should be defending him. Even if most of the bad stuff about him is exaggerated, his name is irreparably sullied. I don't even believe a billion-dollar advertising campaign could turn around popular opinion on Stalin now. If Communists actually had a billion dollars I'm not sure that it would be a sensible use of resources anyway. Personally, I'm more concerned with the world getting to Communism than I am in being true to Stalin's memory and in point of fact, if he was being consistent he would agree with this approach. It's not surprising that many Commies are attracted to Trotsky - he has much of the prestige of the original Bolsheviks and yet he was out of power when the worst excesses occurred. The fact that he was heavily critical of many things in the USSR makes it easier to adopt him without endorsing the USSR as a good example of Communism. It would be very hard to hold Stalin up as your model without endorsing the USSR which he ran for a good 25 years. There are important ideological issues naturally, but as far as someone who can be marketed to non-Commies he is probably an easier job than Stalin. Spitting on the name of someone who is generally perceived to be a mass-murderer is probably sensible strategy for parties trying to attract people who aren't sociopaths. 11 Jan 2012, 04:58
Im always surprised more commies didn't pick Bukharin as "the not stalin" guy. Always seemed to be a far more interesting and level headed guy, and I seriously doubt that Trotsky would have done much better than Stalin did.
As far as Stalin goes, it's one of those situations where there are no simple answers. Yes, some that were purged were criminals. Yes, the USSR was subject to foreign intervention and counter-revolutionary activity. Yes, the deaths and imprisonments have been ridiculously exaggerated. At the same time, innocent people were harmed, imprisoned or killed, a level of authoritarian control were established that the USSR would never really shake, and a cult of personality was established. Whether it was, on balance, good bad or indifferent is up to individual interpretation I guess. Shigalyov is absolutely correct that it's a wasted battle to fight, though. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 11 Jan 2012, 06:01
Maybe you believe it is a wasted battle because there was no communism in your country. In France the communist party was strong, it went to power after the war and builded most of the social system we are trying to defend today. But it was also a stalinist party even though we didn't kill anyone except a few nazis. So the battle for Stalin isn't a waste of time but a matter of memory and honor. Moreover, why do you think people in Russia still respect Stalin? Aren't they supposed to be the ones who suffered? I don't say we should walk with the portrait of Stalin in our demonstrations, but we should at least tell the truth about him.
"Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 11 Jan 2012, 06:07
OP-Bagration wrote: eh, we had the DKP, and we have the unity party today. No different in Denmark than it was in France, though they were and are left-communist more than stalinist. I should have explained better though: I don't think we should refrain from telling the truth, but pursuing active political action under stalin's name and banner is not likely to lead anywhere today. Does that make sense? I got kind of a rotten cold, so Im all fuzzy headed Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 11 Jan 2012, 06:17
OP-Bagration wrote:Such things are nice extras, but they're really just side issues which we bicker over instead of bringing Communism to the world. And as I said previously, if Stalin was consistent he would approve of his name being discarded in the interests of the cause and political expedience. After the revolution we can correct all the mistaken notions people have about him, but in the meanwhile it's a very low priority. And it's really hurting the cause. OP-Bagration wrote:The fact that a great many of them are suffering terribly now and the fact that only the very old actually lived during Stalin's reign might be considerations here. Russia is terribly harsh place to live nowadays ... it's not surprising that people look at the Stalin-era through rose-coloured glasses OP-Bagration wrote:Once we've won the battle we can worry about that sort of thing - in the meantime (in public at least) we should be loudly disowning him. 11 Jan 2012, 06:28
Trotsky was a better Marxist, in terms of theory, but was a dick so he lost the political battle. Stalin was a great leader but he was a dick too and too full of himself (well really that claim can be leveled at Trotsky and quite fairly). Too big egos, two great marxists in their own ways, both far too conceited to have resolved their quarrel like men.
Both are irrelevant to the world today. The loss of the USSR saw to that. Permanent Revolution is for backwards countries so they can bypass the capitalist stage and proceed to socialism. Socialism in One Country was a theory designed specifically for the USSR after the failures (which is a can of worms in and of itself) of the european revolutions and outside of those conditions is essentially meaningless. We live in a post-USSR world, if we don't become post-USSR Leninists we'll die out.  لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 11 Jan 2012, 06:30
Dagoth Ur wrote: out of curiosity, since you're one of the people I always read something interesting from: What's your verdict on Bukharin? Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 11 Jan 2012, 06:57
Bukharin is an interesting figure and a respectable communist as far as I'm concerned. I once toyed with the idea of a Bukharin leadership with Stalin and Trotsky as Lietenents. I still think there should have been a different leader like Lenin who could keep them both in line.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 11 Jan 2012, 07:05
Quote: Yes but we had about 700 000 members at the beginning of the 1980's, and we still have 130 000 today. Quote: This is the same argument as Shigalyov's. But what if the bourgeoisie says communism is bad? Will you throw it to trash? This is what they did in Italy, and now look at the result. I don't say we should use Stalin as a banner. I said we should defend him when he is attacked, because the history of the USSR is one of our citadels. You won't do anything if you have this burden of history on your shoulders, and you won't get rid of it if you don't accept it. Now many communist opportunists say : this is what stalinists did, we should do something different. They accuse the marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the doctrine and the so-called dogmatism of the Soviets. What will you do? If you refuse the debate you won't win this war. Quote: I don't think so. Why do you think Lenin defended the Jacobin of 1793? Because it was a matter of political theory and ideology. You won't have a revolution unless you have clear ideas on what happened in USSR. "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 11 Jan 2012, 07:34
Do you honestly think that defending Stalin in the twenty-first century is doing anything to further the cause of Communism?
If so, okay then, but I just don't see it . He just seems to be more of a weapon for our enemies to throw in our faces every time we want to defend Communist ideas, than an actual asset to the cause. Dagoth Ur wrote:Bukharin's an interesting character. I've been looking for that biography by Stephen F. Cohen for a while now. 11 Jan 2012, 13:07
Quote: And who is to be defended then? Brezhnev? Who is really attacked by the capitalist propaganda, as really dangerous? As long as it is Stalin to have concentrated the whole efforts of the bourgoisie to be presented as a monster, there must be a reason. On the contrary, rejecting stalin is the true victory for the bourgoisie! Trotsky on the other hand, as I can see, is presented as a likable figure, by the western propaganda, of the "true and original revolutionary" who got smashed by "the communist beasts" Reasonable.. He wasn't dangerous, and he he was useful in the effort of presenting the existing socialism as a nightmare. Yes, Stalin was the first in history of mankind, to terminate any bourgoise activity within a state and build socialism, on the basis of marxis leninism as it was developed over time. He must be defended by the attacks of our enemies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
11 Jan 2012, 13:35
Quote: But this is my point. Stalin used to be a weapon for the working class, and now he is a weapon for our enemies (in western capitalist countries) because we abandoned our own history. They speak about Katyn and the 1933 famine, but we have the proof that it was a lie. They said that he freaked out at the beginning of the war but now we have the proof that it was another lie. Of course, we must also criticize him for his mistakes, but isn't the truth revolutionary? Quote: I don't know if it can further the cause, but when you are attacked, you must not flee. Stalin, however, is a symbol of radicalism and jusqu'au-boutisme, which mean that you reach the very end of your ideas. That's why he still worries the bourgeoisie and the reformists, because they can't accept that we refuse their bourgeois views about "totalitarianism". There is the political legacy, which is mostly the struggle against Trotsky. But there is also the philosophical legacy, which is more like Zizek says : revolutionary terror. "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
