No.1833104
He's a historical artefact of a bygone era.
Trotskyism itself seems mainly like a backlash/forewarning against immanentising the eschaton.
No.1833107
An egotistical psychopath motivated by petty spite and genocidal racism. The only value one can get in studying Trotsky is as a cautionary tale of what happens when a subscriber to liberal cosmopolitanism tries and fails to subvert a communist movement on the behest of foreign powers. He spent the last years of his life subsidized by the west and writing articles openly praising Hitler, which says all you need to know about him
No.1833113
A very common topic. Trotsky's texts left him with an edge in the debate with Stalin, but isn't the behavior of his followers leaning towards the West another form of 'corruption' compared to Stalin's bureaucratic apparatus?
常见的话题。托先知留下来的文本让他在与斯大林的争论中赢得一筹，但是他的追随者倒向西方的行为相较于斯大林的官僚机构又何尝不是另一种“腐化”呢
No.1833119
>>1833102Trotsky was the leader of victorious red army but purity spiraling stalinists still obsess about trotskyist saboteurs.
No.1833125
>>1833104A historical artifact like all 20th century communists or do you mean more of how he's used as a "what if??" kind of cope?
>>1833107Who was he genocidely racist against?
I don't know if I would call Trot a subscriber to "liberal comsopolitanism" He seemed like a prettty dedicated socialist to me. What makes you say otherwise?
No.1833129
People on here will reduce it down to ideologyism, but trotskyites were, and still are, dangerous cancer cells that MUST be eliminated. Trotskyism is NOT historically irrelevant. Cultural trotskyism can be observed EVERYWHERE in the West.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/trotskyism.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/11/23.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/12/27.htmThey were fundementally wrong on EVERY issue. They STILL are.
No.1833131
>>1833102Trotsky was often right (particularly regarding the complete fucking debacle of "social fascism") but contemporary trotskyists are irredeemable and useless.
No.1833132
>>1833113That's what I'm wondering, personally he seemed like a pretty serious revolutionary, but his followers never seemed to be able to let go of their hatred of uncle Joe Steel
No.1833133
>>1833102>He was also Lenin's guyHe wasn't. Just like Bukharin, the moment Lenin died they started singing him praises because the dead person couldn't call them out on hypocrisy of them being in opposition to Lenin their whole lives
No.1833134
>>1833125>Who was he genocidely racist against?Russians
No.1833137
>>1833113>Trotsky's texts left him with an edge in the debate with StalinNot you too. Don't fall into trotskyism. The guy conspired with Nazis, ffs. Even in China trotskyists managed to get recruited by Japanese fascists
No.1833141
>>1833129Could you give me some examples of these dangerous and subversive Troskyite ideas in modern leftist discourse? Is it just limited to muh Stalin evil, or is there more?
No.1833143
>>1833133This is silly, it was a matter of historical record that Lenin and Trotsky had major disagreements in the past and plenty of party members reminded Trots of this. But that was the name of the game in the RSDLP, it doesn't mean he wasn't Lenin's guy during/post October
No.1833144
>>1833125>prettty dedicated socialistYou mean when he fought against Stalin's USSR alongside all kinds of imperialists? When he claimed for himself all Red Army victories, despite the fact that those happened in spite of him, not because of him? Despite the fact that military specialists were the nest of traitors who were only tolerated because there weren't that many specialists who weren't employed by Tsarist regime in Russia to begin with? Despite the "no peace, no war, but the army must be demobilized" nonsense he spoke the moment he got out from under the Lenin's reach, with Lenin immediately overruling Trotksy's decrees? Despite the fact that Trotsky has spent more time fighting against Stalin and Budyonnyi and Lenin's control than actually organizing anything, and going into silent protest over Lening assigning people to draw war plans? Despite the fact that Trotsky-curated Second Cavalry Army was assigned commanders WHO FUCKING TRIED to switch sides in a civil war, and only the signals sent by the medium level commanders have prevented this shit, with Trotsky trying his damnedest to distance himself from his own appointees? Despite the fact that Trotsky ran fucking away from Moscow on an armored train so that Lenin and others couldn't overrule his orders anymore?
Despite the fact that Trotsky was in opposition to Lenin ALWAYS, at any time, and then immediately start claiming that he was Lenin's heir and closest comrade (tactic they shared with Bukharin btw) the moment Lenin has died? Despite the fucking fact that investigations in Trotsky's archives have found that there were, in fact, secret ink correspondence in there, as well as proofs that trots have destroyed certain evidence from the archives that could have proven Stalin right?
Oh, what a fucking principled socialst, wow
No.1833145
>>1833134Go back to /pol/ with this nonsense.
No.1833147
>>1833143He wasn't Lenin's guy AT ALL. He "switched sides" after Lenin's death to gain legitimacy. Nobody fucking believed him, though, because as we have seen Stalin has easily won all the Lenin's "votes". All you have on your side for the theory of "Trotsky as Lenin's heir" is trotskyists' historical revisionism, and anti-stalinist Khruschev's proven fake Lenin's will letter, which Khruschev used in his fight against stalinists
Trotsky wasn't Lenin's guy, and it's blatantly clear from Trotsky's voting record, being in opposition to Lenin on EVERY issue
No.1833150
>>1833102>Either that or I see "Trotskyist" used as a general slur against leftist/communist orgs people don't like.Trotskyist orgs do in fact exist. They call other non-trotskyists (eg MLs) "stalinists" usually. They also tend to have weird hold ups about MLs. I was once told by a trot that MLs were prohibited from reading Trotsky. Honestly there's so many fucking retards on the left that have way too much of an influence and voice. Most of them really need to shut the fuck up and follow orders quietly.
I've also personally witnessed MLs be fucking retards in way more ways than trots because I have been in ML orgs and witnessed utter madness play out. I've also had the displeasure of working with "brand" anarchists, like mutualists or whatever they brand themselves as. Ironically I have no complaints on the anarkiddies and the food not bombs people (who were kind enough to provide food at marches and shit).
As for Trotksy himself, I've never read anything by him, only his letter to his wife about him being mad hungry for her pussy.
>>1833144I don't have good knowledge about Trotksy but the fact that Mexican socialists were trying to kill him (including Siqueiros) is pretty damning in my eyes. He must have been doing SOMETHING very wrong. Particularly when there was other very egregious shit going on at that time.
Why exactly did socialists want Trotsky killed?
No.1833153
>>1833150>Why exactly did socialists want Trotsky killed?Because trots in Spain have sabotaged the united front, duh. Just like British and French imperialists wanted, and just like how fascists have benefitted. Republican side of the conflict, which partly was volunteers from former Spanish colonies and was widely suppoted by by Spanish-speaking world, hated POUM and blamed them for the defeat. Soviets themselves had to pull out of Spain because the united front , under the pressure from Britain and France, voted Soviet forces out, basically, under the promise that Britain and France will help Republic win - but then imperialists straight up didn't help. Guess fucking which side trots were on in a conflict between Soviets and UK/France, both backers of the Republic, in Spain
No.1833162
>>1833144>You mean when he fought against Stalin's USSR alongside all kinds of imperialists?Now why would Trotsky have beef with Stalin's USSR? A mystery indeed
>When he claimed for himself all Red Army victories, despite the fact that those happened in spite of himCome on now, it's a matter of historical fact that Trotsky was doing a good job during the civil war, so much so that everyone was actually very surprised. Like yeah bro, they won the horribly brutal and tense civil war "despite" their chief war commissar, not in part because of him. This feels like cope, seethe and ideology.
>Despite the fact that military specialists were the nest of traitors who were only tolerated because there weren't that many specialists who weren't employed by Tsarist regime in Russia to begin with?Incoherent. Yeah lol, let's just fight a war without veteran officers, because it would be ideologically pure, how did that work out again for the millions of red army soldiers during ww2?
>Despite the "no peace, no war, but the army must be demobilized" nonsense he spoke the moment he got out from under the Lenin's reach, with Lenin immediately overruling Trotksy's decrees?Bro, the party sent him out there to end the war lmao. Not saying that what he decided was a particularly smart move, but it was an incredibly tough situation.
>despite the fact that Trotsky has spent more time fighting against Stalin and Budyonnyi and Lenin's control than actually organizing anything, and going into silent protest over Lening assigning people to draw war plans?What are you talking about? Dude was literally the leader of the Petrograd Soviet and Commissar of War during the Civil War, which he won.
Like all of these points are either honest mistakes, personality flaws or discrediting of his accomplishments or being mad he didn't always agree 100% on everything Lenin said ever.
What actual beliefs did he hold that contradict socialism?
No.1833165
>>1833162>A mystery indeedBecause he was a power-hungry opportunist who got foiled at every turn
>it's a matter of historical fact that Trotsky was doing a good job during the civil warLolno, Trotsky was doing a horrible job and was reading a fantasy book in a corner while all the other members of the military council were drawing plans. He managed to get into the war commission, but then got squeezed out of there for his incompetence
Just a reminder, "his" whole fucking army was demobilized after the war, and almost the entirety of military personnel got replaced ASAP. Majority of his appointees from "military specialists" ended their careers as instructors in military academies, not as battlefield officers, unlike Stalin's appointees.
>how did that work out again for the millions of red army soldiers during ww2?Trot and fascist lies about the Red Army - name a more iconic duo
>the party sent him out there to end the warYeah, and instead of ending the war he decided not to end it, but instead to demobilize the army. Smart move my ass, when the German army started advancing towards Leningrad
>Dude was literally the leader of the Petrograd Soviet and Commissar of War during the Civil WarSo, he was a chairman on a council of this and that, and this means he was solely responsible for everything? Amazing shit, trots really have no shame
5 out 5 points wrong, congrats
No.1833166
>>1833147I don't know what to tell you broski, but Trotsky "switched sides" before Lenin's death. He was with the Bolsheviks before the October Revolution. In a lot of ways he was the face of the communists, moreso than Lenin was. At least to ordinary people at the time.
He may or may not have been his "heir", but he was his guy, they liked and respected eachother as important figures in the party, to a reasonable degree.
No.1833168
>>1833165<Yeah, and instead of ending the war he decided not to end it, but instead to demobilize the army. Smart move my ass, when the German army started advancing towards LeningradOh, and Lenin on top of that overruled any orders Trotsky has given out to the army in accordance with his demobilization idea
>>1833166>He was with the Bolsheviks before the October RevolutionEveryone was, which was the original cause of USSR's collapse. Stalin should have purged opportunists harder, like Mao did
>they liked and respected eachother as important figures in the partyLil' Judas Trotsky was respected by Lenin? Fuck off. Every fucking time Lenin talked about Trotsky it was with disdain, before or after the Revolution. Trotsky was a necessary evil bolsheviks had to tolerate because in the aftermath of February Revolution they became a "wide umbrella" leftist party with wider and wider umbrella-ism to them. Then all the other parties were banned for betraying the Revolution, and thus all the opportunists had to join Bolsheviks or become irrelevant - or dead, because White Guard fascists killed all leftists without distinction
Lenin forced all the democrats and socialists into a Communist Party, following Communist Party strict rules, and that was a correct measure at the time. It inevitably bit Soviets into the ass later on, though
No.1833169
>>1833166>>1833168>>1833162Oh, and btw, in regards to Trotsky being the leader of the Red Army, yadda yadda. It was Lenin, actually, just like Stalin after him. It's a common knowledge that presidents are the heads of the military, isn't it?
No.1833170
>>1833137>Even in China trotskyists managed to get recruited by Japanese fascistsSauce me up bro
No.1833172
>>1833170Dunno, it was posted here somewhere, some report by Chinese communists on how trots were allying with Japanese and working as their spies
Hell, read this for a minute:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/china/china06.htmIt spends all the time talking about how trots need to fight stalinists, and how majority of the members have already left the trot party for "stalinist" one. And then trots are proud of infiltrating "stalinist" party and military units and converting "stalinist" workers
No.1833173
>>1833170Ever hear of Wang Jingwei? Formerly the leader of the social fascist wing of the KMT, he got so butthurt over Trotsky’s exile and Mao being more popular among the peasantry than him that he leaped into the arms of the Japanese the first chance he got along with the rest of the so called KMT left wing
No.1833174
he picked a fight he couldn't win
No.1833176
>>1833165You are brainpoisened by ideology friend. I am not, nor will I ever be a Trot, yet you are falling over yourself foaming at the mouth to call me one because I question your ideological narrative.
>Lolno, Trotsky was doing a horrible job and was reading a fantasy book in a corner while all the other members of the military council were drawing plans. He managed to get into the war commission, but then got squeezed out of there for his incompetenceThis is pure delusion. Ask any historian about Trotsky's accomplishments during the Civil War and they'll tell you he was surprisingly competent.
>Just a reminder, "his" whole fucking army was demobilized after the warHmmmm now why would Trotsky's leadership position in the army, which he led to victory, be immediately taken away once Lenin died?? Again, a mystery indeed
>Trot and fascist lies about the Red Army - name a more iconic duoIs it a lie that Stalin purged all his high ranking military officers just before the outbreak of the war, which led to massive and preventable losses at the beginning of the war?
>eah, and instead of ending the war he decided not to end it, but instead to demobilize the army. Smart move my ass, when the German army started advancing towards LeningradThey knew that was the offer he was bringing them dipshit, they didn't just let him go there like "Ahh we're sure you'll think of smt to get out of this whole "Great War" thing once you're in germany Lev"
>So, he was a chairman on a council of this and that, and this means he was solely responsible for everything? Amazing shit, trots really have no shameWhere did I say he was "solely responsible for everything"?
You said he was too busy fighting Stalin and didn't actually organize anything and I simply pointed out how you're a fucking retard for saying that. Then your brain short-circuited or smt and you immediately tried to dismiss and deflect to make it about something I never said
Again, you are brainrotted by ideology
No.1833178
>>1833176>Ask any historianOpinion discarded
No.1833180
>>1833176Why was Trotsky targeted by Mexican socialists? Why was he so despised?
Also, wasn't Trotskyism promoted by the US feds?
Genuine question.
No.1833183
I like ol' Bronstein because he was a jew and he looked like Adam Friedland, yet despite of this he was actually more masculine and militarily competent than a lot of the generals fighting in the Civil War. (Definitely had more balls than Stalin who had an emotional breakdown after the fascist invasion). Rightoids often fashion themselves as warrior-scholars which is ironic considering that Trotsky is the first person that comes to my mind whenever i hear that term
No.1833184
>>1833168>Everyone wasExcept everyone who wasn't of course, like all the remaining Mensheviks and SRs.
You're talking about people who came later pal, post october, not febuary. That's when the party massively expanded in size and all the opportunists joined, as that was the time where being in the party actually brought opportunities.
>Every fucking time Lenin talked about Trotsky it was with disdain, before or after the RevolutionLenin talked about everyone like that. They were both strong personalities and were often in conflict because of that. Doesn't mean they didn't respect each other as revolutionaries.
>Lenin forced all the democrats and socialists into a Communist Party, following Communist Party strict rules, and that was a correct measure at the time. It inevitably bit Soviets into the ass later on, thoughI agree
No.1833185
>>1833176>Is it a lie that Stalin purged all his high ranking military officers just before the outbreak of the warYes, it's a lie. Tukhachevsky by that point was a paper pusher, far removed from the actual control of the military
>massive and preventable losses at the beginning of the warYet another fascist lie. "Tukhachevsky wasn't a traitor I swear" was printed in the same fascist newspapers on the occupied territory as this lie. Fact is, however, that Soviets have lost 7 million people, soldiers and civilians both, in the war, against fascist bloc's 12 millions, mostly soldiers. In 1941 before the counteroffensive alone Soviets have dealt to Nazis 4 millions casualties, killing off third of German infantry and destroying half the tanks and planes. You can quite easily google up memoirs of German general staff and find how quickly they went from "haha this war is completely won, USSR has collapsed" to panic of Soviet "hordes", and the horrid realization after the series of investigations on the frontlines that Soviets have never actually lost the units they've lost according to German reports - because Germany was a corrupt country and had a habit of overreporting enemy casualties, as the norm for bourgeois countries
No.1833186
>>1833178History is when I don't listen to historians:>
No.1833187
>>1833186Yes, bourgeois history is a pseudo-science. You don't agree?
No.1833189
>>1833180I don't know much about him post revolution really. If I had to guess, it's proably that he didn't care about muh unions n workers rights type stuff, which the mexicans were all about, but that's pure conjecture on my part
No.1833190
>>1833184>Lenin talked about everyone like thatNo, only about the chronic opposition
>You're talking about people who came later pal, post october, not febuary. Both. People who smelled where the history is going have joined Bolsheviks in droves. Even goddamned Kollontai was eventually exiled to Sweden to act as an ambassador
No.1833192
>>1833185Im sure Stalin was actually very competent and the 20 million or so was literally the bare minimum amount of victims the Ussr could have lost historically. There is no way Stalin could have been an incompenent military strategist, because he had such a good track record of military victory, unlike trots, who definitely never accomplished anything on the field of battle ever
No.1833193
>>1833187>all historians and all of history is bourgeois Ok buddy
No.1833197
>>1833189Seems rather important… past socialist actions don't justify reactionary or antirevolutionary behavior. Risking your life to kill a guy that didn't care about unions? Sounds ridiculous and completely wrong. I insist, there must have been a good reason why he was exiled, why he was a target of Mexican socialists, and was eventually killed by a Spaniard (?).
No.1833198
>>1833192>20 million or so was literally the bare minimum amount of victims the Ussr could have lost7 million, actually. 20 millions are DEMOGRAPHIC losses, not actual corpses. There were 7 millions corpses.
That's what I am talking about when calling bourgeois history a pseudo-science, and reminding you people that trotkyism and fascist propaganda go hand-in-hand
>>1833193Not all of history, but the "historians" you talked about most certainly are. It's just a product of a circlejerk culture where academics have to fellate each other to become relevant and receive fame and funding. Concepts such as "this historian says X people died, this says Y, this means the middle ground is the universally accepted figure" is a clear sign of a pseudo-science, buddy. Furthermore, historians refuse vehemently to try and recreate any of their theories in real life, preferring to use other historians and "new evidence" instead of scientific method
In short, don't be a fucking lib
No.1833199
>>1833190>No, only about the chronic oppositionOpposition to him, which included almost everyone at one point or another
>Both. People who smelled where the history is going have joined Bolsheviks in drovesThis is a cope, people weren't fucking precognizant of the path of history. At that point in time it could have just as easily been the SRs that took over, they had a broader appeal amongst the populus after all, or nobody for that matter. Insane to call someone an opportunist for joining the Bolsheviks pre-October
No.1833200
>>1833197>why he was exiledOh, that's easy. He wanted to split the Party, when those attempts were straight up banned, he, despite claiming that he agrees with the ban, has continued to propagandize his platform for the split. As a result he got exiled to Kazakhstan IIRC, and his cronies booted out of the party.
You'd think he'd get the hint, but noooo, the moment he landed in Kazakhstan, he started to write letters to his cronies with the conspiracy ideas, but the idiot for some reason didn't realize that NKVD would most definitely read his letters after his nonsense, and thus he landed a lot of his conspiratard friends into gulags, and he himself was thrown out into Istanbul
Since then he was begging random people for money, because outside of USSR his practical use was near zero
No.1833203
>>1833199>At that point in time it could have just as easily been the SRs that took overNo. Worker councils/Soviets in cities hated SR guts, and military councils were predominantly bolshevik. SRs had a voter base in the rural areas, and as time went on, even their majority in the bourgeois parliament - in the transitional government - started to get erased, and in the Soviets SRs were humiliated basically from the very beginning.
It was fairly obvious that communists had Soviets following them, and bourgeois parliament was losing ground, especially with Kerensky, the wannabe dictator whose main power base was in the SRs, becoming pro-war and anti-worker more and more.
In short, with Bolsheviks so fucking strong in the military and trade unions, it wasn't an impossible, improbable bet, and Bolsheviks had a huge population base to draw new cadres from - military and trade unions
No.1833209
>>1833198>7 million, actually. 20 millions are DEMOGRAPHIC losses, not actual corpses. There were 7 millions corpses.Uhm no, why are you acting like direct corpse observation is the only way to reach death statistics?? You're just taking one specific study of the demographic calculations and acting like that's the only number people ever look at. When there's several different studies, which look at Soviet records and use various different forms of analysis. The general consensus comes to somewhere around 20 million.
Just as another point I don't understand how "Nazis murdered 12 million Ussr civilians and still got their ass handed to them later" works well as facist propaganda
>Not all of history, but the "historians" you talked about most certainly areIn your head maybe, I agree with your analysis of lib historians generally tho
>In short, don't be a fucking libFair enough
No.1833214
>>1833203>>1833203It was a good bet definitely, but it's a stretch to call that opportunism, when nothing was very certain in that time at all
No.1833218
>>1833209>When there's several different studies, which look at Soviet records and use various different forms of analysis. The general consensus comes to somewhere around 20 million. See? This is exactly what I am talking about. Bourgeois pseudo-science instead of real fucking methodology of war losses. There were 7 million dead Soviets as a result of the war, around half and half military and civilian.
I get it that you don't want to accept that Soviets have kicked fascist ass so hard fascism as an ideology became a laughing stock because you are a crypto-fascist yourself, but face the fucking facts. Soviets have won because they suffered less losses because Soviet military doctrine was better, and Soviet industry stronger, than Nazi Germany's.
>In your head maybeYou have just straight up said the words I've predicted you'd say. You are believing pseudo-scientists
Riddle me this: if Soviets have lost 20 million people, most of them men, how in the flying fuck did Soviets manage to defeat Nazis? All conversely, why DIDN'T Nazis do the same thing as Soviets and just like conscript every male and put all women to work in factories, as per Nazis' myths about USSR? They didn't want to win? This is btw a little application of scientific method to history - experiments should be replicable, and Nazis for some reason just didn't seem like wanting to win against communism, if we are to believe bourgeois historians
No.1833225
>>1833218>Bourgeois pseudo-science instead of real fucking methodology of war losses. There were 7 million dead Soviets as a result of the war, around half and half military and civilianYeah bro, the only way to accurately come to statistical results is to count every corpse by hand. tf is this man? You're actually insane if you think that the Soviet Union lost only 3 million soldiers, there are no statistics even from the soviets themselves that are even close to this number.
>I get it that you don't want to accept that Soviets have kicked fascist ass so hard fascism as an ideology became a laughing stock because you are a crypto-fascist yourselfYou are ridiculous. I don't give a fuck about how it does or does not make facists look, if anything it looks worse for them that they were able to inflict massive casualties and still get their ass handed to them
> but face the fucking facts. Soviets have won because they suffered less losses because Soviet military doctrine was better, and Soviet industry stronger, than Nazi Germany's.you are a fucking retard man, I guess the nazis just whoopsiedaisied their way to stalingrad, soviets must've been not paying attention to that one huh? Ridiculous posturing, we all know the red army did a great job against germany bro, you don't need to prove anything to anyone
>Riddle me this: if Soviets have lost 20 million people, most of them men, how in the flying fuck did Soviets manage to defeat Nazis? because higher casualty count =/= immediate military defeat
>All conversely, why DIDN'T Nazis do the same thing as Soviets and just like conscript every male and put all women to work in factories, as per Nazis' myths about USSR? They didn't want to win? This is btw a little application of scientific method to history - experiments should be replicable, and Nazis for some reason just didn't seem like wanting to win against communism, if we are to believe bourgeois historians No.1833227
>>1833225>All conversely, why DIDN'T Nazis do the same thing as Soviets and just like conscript every male and put all women to work in factories, as per Nazis' myths about USSR? They didn't want to win? This is btw a little application of scientific method to history - experiments should be replicable, and Nazis for some reason just didn't seem like wanting to win against communism, if we are to believe bourgeois historiansWhy didn't 2 entirely different nations use the exact same techniques to win?
Yeah that's a real tough one pal
No.1833230
>>1833173>Wang Jingwei>Trotskyistlol what an insane lie, Trotsky's position on the china question was precisely opposed to Wang and the 'left' kmt. It was Stalin who supported first Wang, then Chiang.
No.1833239
>>1833227>I guess the nazis just whoopsiedaisied their way to stalingradOh, you mean Nazis threw an overwhelming amount of corpses at Soviets, and managed to push through as a result???
No.1833244
>>1833225>the only way to accurately come to statistical results is to count every corpse by handYes, this is true. And Soviets did that, with corpses not found falling under "missing person" category, presumed dead
No.1833253
>>1833102ive heard of him
great guy, a great guy no doubt. not right in the head thats for sure but hes one of the good ones
No.1833424
>>1833244The Soviets themselves had records of at least 8 million dead soldiers so idk wtf you're on about
No.1833499
Trotsky lost. Get over it already. You can praise him as much as you want for his theoretical and revolutionary contributions, but what he did after losing the struggle was inexcusable. He had that icepick coming.
No.1833502
>>1833102Most don't know even know why they hate Trotsky since the actual disputes are pretty esoteric, just that they're supposed to as a good "communist" or whatever. Kind of a reflexive/paranoid vestige of 20th century Stalinism and the focus on such an egoistic rivalry lets them off the hook for the other 20 old Bolsheviks they need to account for. There are a ton of insane Trotskyist sects who have helped keep this counterproductive feud alive though, but it would be a big error to think that's exclusive to Trotskyism.
>>1833150>I've also personally witnessed MLs be fucking retards in way more ways than trots because I have been in ML orgs and witnessed utter madness play out.There was an ML podcaster with "Proles of the Round Table" who taught his infant son to hate a picture of Trotsky, taught another son to write about boiling Trotsky alive for school, and then the podcast imploded because he wanted to use the Patreon money to buy a brewery.
>>1833183>I like ol' Bronstein because he was a jew and he looked like Adam Friedland, yet despite of this he was actually more masculine and militarily competent than a lot of the generals fighting in the Civil War. Imagine Adam Friedland in an armored train wearing a leather jacket and slaying puss.
>>1833184>Lenin talked about everyone like that. They were both strong personalities and were often in conflict because of that. Doesn't mean they didn't respect each other as revolutionaries. Lenin had a methodologically complex way of acting toward every person he had intense contact with, like a type of realism that sought to bring various individuals into harmony with social necessity, while maintaining an objectivity of judgement independent of personal sympathies. For example, he was very sympathetic to Bukharin personally, and emphasized his legitimate popularity in the party, but in his so-called testament, said he was never a true Marxist. During a conversation with Gorky, he emphasized Trotsky's enormous merits and actions during the civil war, and said the party could be legitimately proud of Trotsky's abilities, however, there were certain "deplorable characteristics that make him resemble Lassalle." He also liked Gorky, but criticized him when he thought Gorky was wrong.
No.1833507
>>1833239>Oh, you mean Nazis threw an overwhelming amount of corpses at Soviets, and managed to push through as a result???That's exactly what they did in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
No.1833512
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Its finger picking good.
No.1833516
>>1833502>Most don't know even know why they hate Trotsky since the actual disputes are pretty esoteric, just that they're supposed to as a good "communist" or whatever.It's called doing a 'meme'.
No.1833618
>>1833612>it is sane to have parasocial relationships with dead people and develop fandoms around themI know this is an imageboard but sneed
No.1833715
>>1833102Stalin fans (I won't call them Tankies or Stalinists to avoid getting banned, maybe someone can propose a label for them that's acceptable on this site…), well they have disagreements with both Trotskyism and with Anarchism, obviously.
So I wonder, what do you make of Trotsky killing off all the Anarchists in their various rebellions? Do you think Trotsky was good at least in regards to having shot then Anarchists in the back? Or do you think it was just another sign of Trotsky being untrustworthy?
No.1833728
Respect for his contributions to the revolution and civil war, but he was far too provocative and reckless in his rhetoric and organizing after the armed struggle had ended. I think the "Trotskyist-Zinoviete conspiracy" is basically a total fabrication in the sense its talked about 99% of the time, but he did alienate himself from much of the party leadership and recklessly organized in opposition to the party at an extremely fragile time. His writings arent terrible but also areny especially valuable because his analysis was so warped by resentment and egoism.
No.1833730
>>1833715WHAT DISAGREEMENTS?!
No one has fucking stated any.
I'm a "Stalinist" and I couldn't seriously care any less about Trotsky, 0 fucks given about this character. If he has good theory then cool, I have yet to be recommended ANY book by him, especially one that makes people call themselves Trotskyists.
What fucking fundamental differences are there between pragmatic, get shit done, Marxist praxis (aka communists, socialists, MLs, Marxists, leninists, apparently stalinists) and trotkyists.
Someone fucking tell me now.
No.1833738
>>1833730If you don't want to read theory and educate yourself on the differences between Trotskyism and the positions of the USSR under Stalin that's on you
It's extremely easy to look this shit up and I'm not here to baby sit you or stop you from crying when you mommy doesn't spoon-feed you
No.1833747
>>1833715I think everyone knew the anarchists were never going to survive, except the anarchists maybe lol. There was a brief alliance against a common enemy, but neither the reds or the blacks were ever gonna let each other be. Trotsky just happened to be the one to do the dirty
>>1833728He was certainly a megalomaniacal figure, always thought he was right about everything and everyone else was retarded and even when he massively blundered he would just shift blame.
That kinda made him a real one tho, it's very leftycore
No.1834239
>>1833730Trotsky is failed Stalin, that's it.
No.1835914
>>1833129>quotes a bunch of Stalinwow unbiased analysis I'm sure.
No.1835926
>>1833150Honestly, it's a bit funky to judge orgs based on their (nominal) ideology.
The two major orgs in my area are both officially Cliffite Trotskyists, but one is actually doing useful communist shit and the other is an absolute cult sabotaging any other group and alienating everyone by being absolute toxic dickheads. Literally changing numbers to continue harassing people who were naïve enough to sign their petition.
I even know a couple of people in the good trot org who are secretly M–L and just want to be in a group that gets shit done. Ideology is ultimately less important than material reality.
No.1835938
>>1833102>What are your opinions on the Trot? I think most of his theory is actually all right but maybe specific policies werent correct for the exact material conditions where he was advocating them. The real problem with him was that he didn't respect the democratic process or democratic centralism. He lost the vote and then tried to overthrow the government and worked undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat.
No.1835942
He came out big against bubble gum and that makes the kiddoes mad TO THIS VERY DAY
No.1836098
He was an ideological globalist wanting to wage worldwide war for communism instead of propping up the soviet economy so by it's blatant superiority across the world it would spread naturally
No.1836099
>>1833125>Who was he genocidely racist against?Russians
No.1836101
>>1833102Ideologue. Stalinism is the logical conclusion of leninism, Trotsky wanted to make things like a one party social democracy
No.1836102
He ran away from the Turkish consulate he was stashed in.
No.1836125
>>1836098>so by it's blatant superiority across the world it would spread naturallyhows that working out for us?
No.1836126
>>1836125where are socialist countries? It would work just fine in a non interventionist world. but imperialists exists. That is why Mao was right in designating anti imperialism to be the number one priority of communist movements
No.1836381
>>1833107> writing articles openly praising Hitler,link?
No.1836391
>>1836101So Trotsky wanted to make Stalinism?
No.1836410
>>1836405Thank you for this unhinged wiki full of inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and anachronisms, it's very entertaining.
No.1836413
>>1836410What inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and anachronisms?
Any examples that you found?
No.1836431
>>1836405Zinoviev believed Russia was not developed enough to build socialism. Following the 14th Congress of the CPSU in 1925, he called a meeting of the Leningrad Provincial Committee of the YCL, which refused to follow the Congress's decision promoting industrialization.[2]
In 1926, Trotsky and Zinoviev formed an anti-Party bloc and rejected democratic centralism. The Central Committee expelled them from the party in November 1927.[5] Zinoviev organized the murder of Sergei Kirov in 1934.[6]
rotsky opposed the New Economic Policy.[7] He soon went in opposition to Lenin and formed an opposition bloc in 1926 with Zinoviev. A joint meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission expelled Trotsky from the party in November 1927.[8] He argued that Stalin's government had entered a stage of bureaucracy and believed that terrorism against the Soviet Union was inevitable.[9]
No.1836482
>>1836413There is zero direct evidence Trotsky ever worked with the feds or the fascists, it's also anachronistic to speak of Marxist Leninists as contemporaries of Lenin, as Marxism Leninism was created after his death by Stalin.
No.1836524
>>1836482Huh… just like Marxism was created after the death of Marx by Lenin. Intredasting
No.1836543
>>1836524When Stalin led the bourgeois counter revolution he created Marxist Leninism as an ideological framework to justify and support it, it has in truth not much to do with Marx or Lenin
No.1836555
>>1836543In fact, I believe Stalin wrote down some of Lenin's views in the book "Foundations of Leninism" and later changed it to say the opposite.
No.1836558
>>1836543Stalin was the only leader that imperial core truly feared. What are you on?
No.1836562
>>1836558Well yeah, Stalin and his views were still a threat to capitalism, even if they were more nationalistic.
No.1837766
>>1836558Not really, only a threat to capitalists. Bourgeois rapine continues in different livery with a different song, that's all.
No.1837781
>>1836558What a fucking joke. They knew they could work with Stalin. It's just they could only work with him so far because he was leading a non-capitalist state they wanted to overthrow.
Stalin always promoted "peaceful coexistence" with imperialism because his dumbass thought you could build socialism in a single country. That's why we didn't fight for socialism in Spain (gotta keep muh bourgeois democracy), in Germany (after Hitler, us!), in France (muh popular front), and only, only carried out a revolution from above in eastern Europe after he was fucking forced to
Stalinism is reactionary and bankrupt. It's effects have retarded the international working class movement, dragged the name of communism through the mud, and made the average person associate communism with gulags, police state repression, and complete hypocrisy
No.1838540
>>1833823This meme is pure fiction btw, even from the POV of Makhno and his writings himself. Lenin was never amicable to any real extent to the Makhnovists, extremely short alliances against the Whites notwithstanding.
No.1838847
>>1837781>because his dumbass thought you could build socialism in a single country
<Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the worldlenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htmGullible Trots will do anything besides read Lenin and swallow imperialist propaganda whole
No.1839756
>>1837781>Stalinism is reactionary and bankrupt. It's effects have retarded the international working class movementTrot rats cheered on Soviet destruction after 70 years of pressure from outside and within
Stalinism was discredited after the End of History. How did the working class movement develop since 1991?
Trots have had the enitre floor for 30 years. What trot achievements are there?
Oh wait Stalinism is popular again
>made the average person associate communism with gulags, police state repression, and complete hypocrisyNo US imperialism and its propaganda apparatus did that whilst trots dumbly nodded and agreed to every retarded lie the imperialists spreas
No.1840358
>>1837781> made the average person associate communism with gulags, police state repression, and complete hypocrisylmao implying Trotsky wouldn't have done any of those things/have been even more coldblooded than Stalin
No.1840367
<By combining the nationalized key industries, your private businesses and democratic consumer cooperation, you will quickly develop a highly flexible system for serving the needs of your population.
<This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.
<Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a “planned economy” with a “managed currency.” Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.
<Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.
<There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes.WTF is this shit
<As a matter of fact, during the first few years a planned economy needs sound money even more than did old-fashioned capitalism. The professor who regulates the monetary unit with the aim of regulating the whole business system is like the man who tried to lift both his feet off the ground at the same time.🙄 Remember kids, it is literally impossible to abandon the gold standard under capitalism and even under the lower phase of communism…
<Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar – a priceless asset. In Russia we have been expanding our industrial plant by 20 and 30 percent a year; but – owing to a weak ruble – we have not been able to distribute this increase effectively.Marxism-Ronpaulism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm No.1840391
what's my name
No.1840400
>>1840367Does anyone has a graph or a good soviet study about the history of monetary policies of the soviet union? A graph to show the "rate of inflation" and the "money supply", for example? Found an article on JStor about it but is not free, lol. Most data i found begins calculating the inflation in 1992. Not very helpful.
Very cringe and glowie article i found about it
https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2667&context=etdThe Role of Inflation in Soviet History: Prices, Living Standards,
and Political Change
Steven M. Efremov
East Tennessee State University
Inflation first started in the Russian Empire during the First World War and led to higher
food prices in the cities, which were major factor in creating urban discontent and bringing down
both the imperial and provisional governments.
However, when the Bolsheviks took over, they
made living conditions even worse by trying to create a moneyless economy. This attempt,
known as war communism, created hyperinflation, a major famine, shortages of goods, and
rebellions by peasants and sailors.
The Bolsheviks were forced to establish a stable currency and
allow some market activity in order to keep from being overthrown like the two governments
before them. They managed to stabilize the ruble by balancing their budget and backing the
currency with gold.
The economy made an astounding recovery in the 1920s under the New
Economic Policy, but industrial prices rose much faster than agricultural prices on the open
market. The Bolshevik leaders responded by crowding out private merchants and re-imposing
price controls. They also continued to purchase grain from the peasants at artificially low rates,
which made them reluctant to sell. These factors inspired the decision to proceed with full-scale
state industrialization and collectivization.
During the Stalin years, the Russian economy had different types of stores with varying
degrees of price controls and inflation. Strict price controls were in place in most state stores and
co-operatives, while others were allowed to sell at higher regulated rates. While these stores had
low prices, they also had shortages and a poor selection of products. In contrast, collective farm
markets were completely free to set their prices according to market forces, but their prices were
usually much higher.
During the Second World War, the government started running budget
deficits and printing too much money again, leading to even higher inflation. State stores and
co-operatives remained under price control and had relatively moderate inflation, but the
collective farm markets had price increases that bordered on hyperinflation. Inflation began to
decline in 1944, after the Soviet government balanced its budget, and was eliminated completely
after a currency reform in 1947.
Glowipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_early_Soviet_Russia#Coming_of_the_NEP_period_(Spring_1921)Anyway, i am quite interested in the subject, don't know anything about macroeconomics or economy in general, so i would like to know more about the subject. If anyone has good suggestions or better sources please share.
But today is may day, and i have stuff to do. I will read those stuff later
No.1840401
"After NEP ended, the Soviet government introduced a multi-tiered price system with
varying degrees of price controls. In 1928-29, rationing of food and consumer good became
widespread throughout Russia. According to Alec Nove, this was “perhaps the first and only
recorded instance of the introduction of rationing in time of peace.”4
Goods were sold at the
official ration prices in state stores, which required ration coupons, but other types of stores had
other price levels, ranging from controlled to free. Workers were able to purchase some items
from special shops that were closed to the public, where prices were higher but the workers were
able to get items unavailable elsewhere. Food and manufactured goods were also sold to the
working class in other stores for prices that were above rationed levels, but below commercial
prices. Other stores, known as torgsin, had goods available only in exchange for precious metals
or foreign currency, which the state badly needed. Finally, prices freely were set by market
forces at peasant bazaars, kolkhoz (collective farm) markets, and black markets.
Unsurprisingly, prices rose much faster where they were influenced by market forces,
than in state stores, in which inflationary pressure manifested itself in shortages instead.
Artificially low prices led to products selling out quickly and shelves laying barren until the next
delivery. In state stores, consumers were expected to take whatever they could find and move
on. These problems developed as soon the government was able to effectively enforce price
controls and continued, to varying degrees, for the rest of Soviet history. Consumer demand that
went unfulfilled in state stores spilled over into the tiny market sector. Because the free sector
was so small in comparison to the excess demand created at state stores, market prices often had
to be several times higher than official ones, in order for supply and demand to balance. For
instance, commercial prices, which were set by the state but close to market rates, were twenty
times higher for bread in 1933, six times higher for sugar, and fourteen times higher for
sunflower oil
Inflation started getting out of control during the Second World War. Due to the
necessary war expenditures, the Soviet government started running its first budget deficits since
the stabilization under NEP and was forced to pay for some percentage of these with new
currency issues. During the war, strict price controls and subsidies kept inflation in official
stores limited. However, collective farm market prices began increasing much faster than they
had during the 1930s and reached hyperinflationary levels during the war. After 1944, the
government was able to balance its budget again and increase the supply of goods in state stores,
so the rate of inflation began to decline from the peak of 1943. Nevertheless, official prices were
almost four times higher in 1947 than they had been in 1940, while kolkhoz prices were six and a
half times higher than 1940 levels and four times higher than state prices at the time. Thus, the
Soviet economy was suffering from both high rates of both open and repressed inflation."
https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2667&context=etd No.1840509
<Trotsky wasn’t a coward, was he?
>No, he was courageous. He was in exile, then escaped, and then was sent to prison. He lived in America. In 1905 he became chairman of the first Soviet of Workers’ Deputies in Petersburg. He left again in 1906 or at the beginning of 1907, and returned for the second time in 1917. He was a man of means. First, he published a newspaper. Second, he apparently was well off.
>I read his autobiography. He begins with his mother and himself going to visit a neighboring landlord in Khersonchshina.
>He was about five years old,and he played with a girl of the same age there and peed in his pants. To describe that! What a vain man!
Trotsky bros, how do you explain thiws?
No.1840517
Hero worship is inseparable from reaction.
Unique IPs: 40