Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
 05 Mar 2012, 05:28
Do you support the execution of Trotsky in 1940?
Should he have indeed been killed or perhaps spared? 05 Mar 2012, 05:30
No. It was execution without trial. Even had Trotsky received a trial, it would have been like the others in the Purge, i.e. a show trial farce. Don't take that as meaning that I have any love for Leon Trotsky.
Soviet cogitations: 3763
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo 05 Mar 2012, 05:36
No. His death made him into a martyr for the anti-Stalin left. If left to his own devices, he would have either proven his theories legitimate, or been lost forever in leftist history along such right deviations as Liu, Bakunin, et al.
 05 Mar 2012, 06:02
No, Trotsky's execution didn't make any sense. He had no power and he wasn't a threat to Stalin or the Soviet government. It was just a waste of time and resources.
 We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev 
Soviet cogitations: 4340
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar 05 Mar 2012, 07:22
I vote no.
But, if you want an argument from somebody saying "yes", you can't do better than David Alfaro Siqueiros' defense speech when he was jailed for shooting up Trotsky's house. He didn't intend to kill him, but he did want to warn of the "danger" that Trotsky represented to the communist cause, in his view. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... rotsky.htm Very hiperbolean on a lot of parts. For instance: Quote: But the main point is that Trotsky was working against popular front tactics, which were especially important in post-revolutionary Mexico. For Siqueiros, Trotksy was spreading ultra-left tactics that threatened to pull communists away from the Cardenas government, playing right into the hands of the reaction. The CP didn't dare oppose president Cardenas, who had granted Trotsky asylum, and so "an insulated action, absolutely independent of every political or union organization, completely autonomous, was the only solution." Quote:  "It does not suffice to reject the error; we must overcome it, explain it and outgrow it." - Antonio Labriola Forum Rules 05 Mar 2012, 08:08
No and not just because I think he was a good Marxist. It was an extremely bad PR move for Stalin that even today puts people against him by itself. It was one of my biggest problems with Stalin in my early days of socialist awakening. Now I figure he was just too caught up in a personal rivalry (and vise-versa) to be rational when it came to Trotsky.
 لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا 05 Mar 2012, 20:45
I'm not sure, but since I have some doubts, I voted yes. The question, in my opinion, is not whether he was a good marxist or not, or if killing people is bad. No, it's mostly about the efficiency of this action. I think it was efficient, because, thanks to Ramon the Trotskyist movement was totally disoriented, and they never recovered the strenght they had before the war. We owe this to him.
 "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 05 Mar 2012, 22:19
Extremely difficult to say. The Soviet Union was at the time of his death preparing for a possible war with Germany. Having someone as influential as Trotsky oppose Stalin especially during wartime was a risk that a man like Stalin didn't have to take. Trotsky having establishing the fourth international along with his critical writings I think made Stalin nervous with the upcoming spread of Fascism. I don't think he would have posed a serious threat had he stayed alive. Nevertheless, Stalin always did have a personal vendetta against Trotsky, and with the political arena heating up in Europe at the time I think it was a good enough reason to Stalin to finally have an old rival eliminated for good.
My laws shall act more pleasure than command, And with my prick I'll govern all the land. 09 Mar 2012, 03:31
Despite the fact that i regard Stalin as one of the greatest political leaders (if not the greatest of them all) in History, i don't back this decision simply because i don't think he needed to murder him. The influence of Trotsky in USSR and the communist party at the time of the murder was almost insignificant (he was more influential outside Russia) and wasn't a real threat to Stalin's ruling. Moreover, i'm also against this sort of solutions to political problems.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
11 Mar 2012, 01:46
Voted other.
Stalin's main abuse was the deliberate stifling of inner-Party democracy and treating his fellow revolutionaries with a level of violence typically reserved for class enemies. Compared to that, the assasination of Trotsky is utterly irrelevant. The USSR was in a tight spot, and the risk for a power struggle to erupt during the GPW was too great to take. Makes sense he'd get offed. Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
11 Mar 2012, 22:26
When someone infiltrates the villa you are living Mexico because your former Party Comrade wants you dead and kills you with an ixe pick with regards from Stalin you are not exactly executed. And no. Stalin was finishing Trotsky, just like he did Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev.
Soviet cogitations: 694
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol 16 Mar 2012, 15:46
Yes. Trotsky had become a danger to the USSR, and could very well have become the "legitmate ruler of Russia" in Western or even fascist propaganda against the Soviet Union.
 "Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics." Me 
Soviet cogitations: 5532
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Embalmed 16 Mar 2012, 16:07
Yes. Had he survived the war, he would've been a perfect poster boy for imperialist and counter-revolutionary desires on the USSR, whether he would have wanted that or not, and would have, in at least come capacity, given a serious mandate (in the language of Marxism) to the imperialist powers to crush the Soviet Union. Almost like that Hitchens guy who died recently.
I would have rather shot him cleanly, not have the poor bastard rolling around in serious pain for a day.  "Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx 16 Mar 2012, 19:37
Quote: Ramon didn't knew that Trotsky would survive the attack. He needed to kill him silently in order to escape. "Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur 17 Mar 2012, 00:13
I had a feeling you'd be on first name terms with a dude like this.
No I don't support it. If you can justify this then you can justify almost any excess committed in the name of a state which still didn't survive anyway. 28 Mar 2012, 08:45
I answered no. He was executed because it helped Stalin maintain power and control. It was completely personal and ironically gave Trotsky more credit towards his suggestion that the Soviet Union had degenerated into a corrupt mess. The argument that he in his tiny Mexican office was more dangerous to the Communist movement than Stalin himself holds no weight. Stalin valued power much more than he valued Communist ideals. That much is certain.
 28 Mar 2012, 11:13
Stalin would not be helpless while Trotsky was still alive. But Stalin's relatives would be. Trotsky would wipe out all remnants of Stalinism including his relatives if he were in power. So, applying common sense in politics, I too would neutralize Trotsky. No other choice but to do it. If Nikita Kruschev who was not affected at all by Stalin's purges can hate and kill Stalin with his words, much more can Trotsky. Politics sucks! I'd rather be a duck egg vendor with no vindictive enemies if I were to live my life all over again.
28 Mar 2012, 11:47
AlmaAta wrote: Going by that logic every person who has political sway should be killed. That's pretty twisted bro. Id hate to be in a Communist movement with you as a leading figure. Id be scared for my life to upset you. Who knows maybe I'm just too nice and your Machiavellian approach is better. 28 Mar 2012, 12:19
You should join Philippine politics then if you are not convinced. I can muster and can win all my way to the executive. But I love my communist relatives. I give you a clan who massacred all his political enemies. Ampatuan. Does it ring a bell. Browse the web and enter 'Ampatuan'.
20 Apr 2012, 04:34
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote: pretty much this. As brutal and demeaning as it was, it was a necessary move to eliminate him because he was a great threat to the Soviet Union and gave the message that the Soviet Union (an Communism) could easily be toppled by those within it's own ideological ranks. EDIT: spelling derp As a karate expert, I will not talk about anybody in this room......" - Jimmy McMillan
|
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.
