[Sandino]

Strange. I was actually always of the thought that it was the Trotskyites (I avoid the use of Trotsky's name for a reason) who were committed to such acts of grave digging. They were always the de-facto bearers of the slogan, "if it isn't by us, it isn't for us", meaning, regardless of the class basis of an act, if it is not preformed under direct Trotskyite guidance, it is denied its positive validity. Such was the attitude toward China; USSR; the so-called 'Eastern Socialist Camp'; Cuba; Indonesia; an overwhelming majority of national liberation movements; etc.

Uh, no.

It was the Stalinists who ordered the Chinese Communist Party to enter the Guomindang in 1927, which led to a mass slaughter of workers. Trotsky vigorously opposed this suicidal policy, and fought for the policy of permanent revolution, the theory that the bourgeoisies of oppressed countries were incapable of making a democratic revolution, and that it was only by going directly to the socialist revolution can the peoples be liberated. The Stalinists made numerous zig-zags regarding China, eventually ending up liquidating the proletarian core of the Chinese communists. This opened the door to Mao, who only under extremely favourable historical conditions was able to come to power in 1949. The Maoists instituted a workers state that was deformed from the start. Although the 1949 revolution was a significant gain for the toilers of China, and was hailed by Trotskyists, it never had a grounding in the working class. And, true to form, the Chinese Stalinists are at this very moment desperately trying to re-introduce capitalism into China with hopes of becoming the new exploiter class.

China's only hope lies in the formation of a Leninist-Trotskyist party leading a political revolution to oust the parasitic bureaucracy in Beijing. As Trotsky predicted for the USSR in 1936, the same is true for China today: either the workers will clean up the bureaucrat or the bureaucrat will devour the workers state.

This happened time and time again. The Stalinists stuck to their "two-stage" theory, by which the proletariat and peasantry were to join forces with that elusive "progressive" wing of their national bourgeoisie, initiate a bourgeois-democratic revolution, and then later go through the socialist revolution. The problem was that the socialist revolution never came, and that once the bourgeois nationalists came to power they crushed the socialists.

Repeatedly, in Spain 1937, Italy 1946, Iraq 1958, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, etc. the communist parties were subordinated to nationalist liberal bourgeois movements, which ended either in a repressive capitalist regime or outright fascism.

Trotsky's ideas on revolution coincided with Lenin's, although Lenin never fully adopted the theory of permanent revolution, instead keeping to his theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. This flawed theory (you can't have a dictatorship of two classes), while it was very close to Trotsky's, left a back door open through which the Stalinists could re-introduce their stagist theories, and thus subvert revolution after revolution.

October 1917 fully validated Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. All those who wish to fight for communism must learn this theory, as it has been validated by history.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"If it's not by us, it's not for us."

Dearest Sandino, by writing that last post, have you actually achieved anything other then a completely clear demonstration of my previous point?

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Do you even know what Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution" was?? I don't think you...and if anything 1917 proved it was all grabage.

Hmm...Trots theory was that the peasants would rise against the workers:

That happened....

Trots theory was that socialism in Russia could not be build...it could only be build first in Western Europe:

That happened too....

And now...for a bit of Trot historical trivia:

I don't suppose you are aware of the fact that Trotsky was actually the leader of the October Revolution, the founder of the Red Army and the Commissar of War during the Civil War. While Trotsky was out there on the front lines rallying the troops, Stalin the bureaucrat was playing political games.

1) Trotsky was the leader of the October Revolution??

I have heard Trots call him the mirror image of God himself....but the leader of the October Revolution is a bit of an exageration...even for the great genious and leader of the human spirit Trotsky (who was cheated out of power by an ignorant stupid fat ugly Georgian)

last I checked...in 1917 Trot was still with the Mensheviks...and even surrendered to them when they called for the arrests of all Bolshevists (well...they wouldn't hurt one of their own)

More correctly...Trotsky was the leader of the 1905 revolution...and was the reason why that classical Trot uprising failed. It was a 2 city uprising...with barricades in the streets...and no one participating in it. Waving flags...lots of talk of great mass proletariat uprising...and yet nothing was actually done to create a mass proletariat uprising of any sort...

Usual Trot idealism...

2) Founder of the Red Army??

He was the top leader...hardly is founder. He was put as its top leader becasue thats what he did best...order people around.

3) Trotsky was at the front??

From what I know...Trotsky was in Moscow pretending to be leading the war...while Stalin and many many other revolutionaries were out there on the front organizing the armies...and fixing the mistakes Trotsky was making.

I think you got history backward my friend.

[Leonid Brezhnev]

Do you even know what Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution" was?? I don't think you...and if anything 1917 proved it was all grabage.

I think it proved a lot comrade.1917 revolution was based to be the start of the Global Revolution,not a national phenomenon, valid within the borders of the former Tsarist Empire alone, but an international event.

Trots theory was that socialism in Russia could not be build...it could only be build first in Western Europe:

Lenin and Trotsky explained that, without the socialist revolution in the West, the Russian workers' state would inevitably be crushed by reaction or by an imperialist war, this was not,a manifestation of "defeatism", but one of extreme revolutionary realism.

I have heard Trots call him the mirror image of God himself....but the leader of the October Revolution is a bit of an exageration...even for the great genious and leader of the human spirit Trotsky (who was cheated out of power by an ignorant stupid fat ugly Georgian)

It is funny how Stalinists use the Trotskyist dogmatism to make stronger their own...

He was the top leader...hardly is founder. He was put as its top leader becasue thats what he did best...order people around.

Are you sure ?

From what I know...Trotsky was in Moscow pretending to be leading the war...while Stalin and many many other revolutionaries were out there on the front organizing the armies...and fixing the mistakes Trotsky was making.

Then it is only your knowledge.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Lenin and Trotsky explained that, without the socialist revolution in the West, the Russian workers' state would inevitably be crushed by reaction or by an imperialist war, this was not,a manifestation of "defeatism", but one of extreme revolutionary realism.

And when it didn't happen in western Europe...Lenin said we must build it in Russia ourselves. Trotsky kept on insisting that we could not build it in Russia but had only hopes in Western Europe.

There lies the difference between Lenin's approach to this and Trotskys. Lenin was the realist...He saw revolution in western Eurpe was not happening.

Trotsky was an idealist...who even when conditions were right in Russia but in Europe...he kept pushing for revolution in Europe.

Then it is only your knowledge.

Mine and the knowledge of the Party members who repalced Trotsky as head of the Red Army with Frunze...

[Sandino]

And when it didn't happen in western Europe...Lenin said we must build it in Russia ourselves. Trotsky kept on insisting that we could not build it in Russia but had only hopes in Western Europe.

False.

Lenin was a genuine internationalist, like Trotsky, and insisted that the revolution could not survive in isolation. For example:

"...we put our stakes upon international revolution and were perfectly justified in doing this... We have always emphasized that we look from an international viewpoint and that in one country it is impossible to accomplish such a work as a socialist revolution."
-Lenin at a speech on the 3rd anniversery of October. From Sochinena, vol. xxv, p.474 (The passage was omitted from editions of the work after 1928.)

After the end of the civil war, he declared,

"We have always and repeatedly told the workers that ... the basic condition of our victory lies in the spread of the revolution at least to several of the more advanced countries."

At the 6th congress of the Soviets he declared,

"The complete victory of the socialist revolution is unthinkable in one country, for it requires the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries among which Russia cannot be classed..."
-Sochinenya (1950 ed.), vol. xxviii, p.132

The impossibility of "socialism in one country" was taken for granted by all Bolsheviks, including Stalin, before the 1924 counter revolution. When the Stalinists gained complete power in the January 1924 congress, they switched their line to the building of "socialism in one country." Thereafter the Comintern was given the task of subordinating the international revolution to the needs of the Soviet bureaucracy, which resulted in betrayal after betrayal. The final betrayal was the undoing of the October Revolution itself in 1992.

Trotsky fought against the disastrous policy of "socialism in one country," insisting, like Lenin, that socialism can only be built on an internationalist basis.

[Sandino]

Do you even know what Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution" was?? I don't think you...and if anything 1917 proved it was all grabage.

False.

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution said that the bourgeoisie in backward countries was incapable of making a democratic revolution, and that therefore the proletariat, supported by the peasantry, would have to over directly to the socialist revolution. That is, the revolution would have to be made "permanent." This is exactly what happened in 1917.

Hmm...Trots theory was that the peasants would rise against the workers:

Are you insane?

1) Trotsky was the leader of the October Revolution??

Yes. Due mainly to the fact that Lenin was forced underground, Trotsky became the voice of the Bolshevik Party, and led the insurrection in Petrograd, the vanguard of the revolution.

It was Trotsky who did the actual leading of the insurrection. However, it couldn't have happened without the Bolshevik Party built by Lenin. Both were indispensible.

last I checked...in 1917 Trot was still with the Mensheviks...and even surrendered to them when they called for the arrests of all Bolshevists (well...they wouldn't hurt one of their own)

False. Trotsky joined with the Bolsheviks almost immediately after arriving in Russia, and became their most prominent spokesman.

More correctly...Trotsky was the leader of the 1905 revolution...and was the reason why that classical Trot uprising failed. It was a 2 city uprising...with barricades in the streets...and no one participating in it. Waving flags...lots of talk of great mass proletariat uprising...and yet nothing was actually done to create a mass proletariat uprising of any sort...

In fact, in 1905 neither Trotsky nor Lenin thought a socialist revolution was possible in Russia. It was only after the experience of 1905 that they came to the conclusion that the only way out was through permanent revolution, through passing directly to the socialist stage.

2) Founder of the Red Army??

He was the top leader...hardly is founder. He was put as its top leader becasue thats what he did best...order people around.

Wrong.

Trotsky founded and built the Red Army from scratch. After the revolution the old Tsarist army was disbanded. Therefore, Trotsky had to build an army out of nothing.

3) Trotsky was at the front??

From what I know...Trotsky was in Moscow pretending to be leading the war...while Stalin and many many other revolutionaries were out there on the front organizing the armies...and fixing the mistakes Trotsky was making.

You are wrong. Trotsky spent almost no time in Moscow until after the Civil War. He was mostly on the front lines in his rail car, directing activities and rallying the troops.

[Sandino]

"If it's not by us, it's not for us."

Dearest Sandino, by writing that last post, have you actually achieved anything other then a completely clear demonstration of my previous point?

No.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"If it's not by us, it's not for us."

Dearest Sandino, by writing that last post, have you actually achieved anything other then a completely clear demonstration of my previous point?

No.

Exactly.

[Leonid Brezhnev]

There lies the difference between Lenin's approach to this and Trotskys. Lenin was the realist...He saw revolution in western Eurpe was not happening.

Neither Lenin, Trotsky, nor anyone else could guarantee the success of a revolutionary movement,it depends in a number of factors.And as Trotsky said:My attitude toward the economic development of the Soviet Union can be characterised as follows: I defend the Soviet economy against the capitalist critics and the Social Democratic reformist critics, and I criticize the bureaucratic methods of the leadership. The deductions were very simple. They were based on the Soviet press itself. We have a certain freedom from the bureaucratic hypnosis. It was absolutely possible to see all of the dangers on the basis of the Soviet press itself.

Trotsky was an idealist...who even when conditions were right in Russia but in Europe...he kept pushing for revolution in Europe.

Trotsky did not want to "throw" the revolution in Europe. He understood that the people of Russia did not want war more than most. But Lenin was all for helping countries in other countries.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Lenin was a genuine internationalist, like Trotsky, and insisted that the revolution could not survive in isolation. For example:

Actually, Ilyich’s only assertion on the issue was that an 'isolated revolution' can not survive peacefully until the complete conclusion of the international issue. Please read:

"Russia's Soviets, the alliance of her workers and poor peasants, are not alone in the steps they take towards socialism. If we were alone, we should not be able to accomplish this task peacefully, for it is essentially an international task. But we have enormous reserves, the armies of the most advanced workers in other countries, where Russia's break with imperialism and the imperialist war will inevitably accelerate the workers' socialist revolution that is maturing."

-V.I. Lenin; The Russian Revolution And Civil War

"...we put our stakes upon international revolution and were perfectly justified in doing this... We have always emphasized that we look from an international viewpoint and that in one country it is impossible to accomplish such a work as a socialist revolution."
-Lenin at a speech on the 3rd anniversery of October. From Sochinena, vol. xxv, p.474 (The passage was omitted from editions of the work after 1928.)

Ironic, really, that Trotsky once had the stomach to name Stalin as the great falsifier of history.
Dear Sandino, what you have presented us with is nothing but a completely de-contextualized distortion of the actual extract from the same speech. The true extract follows:

"If we now cast a glance at the international situation - and we have always stressed that we regard things from the international standpoint-and examine the history of the wars that have been waged against Soviet Russia, we shall see that we are at peace with almost all the little bourgeois states bordering on us, states in winch Bolsheviks are persecuted and executed."

As a matter of fact, your version of the extract runs completely contrary to Lenin's stance in a previously written article, published in the Kommunistichesky Subbotnik only 7 months before the 3rd anniversary of the 'October Uprising'. Please refer to my post, 'Lenin on Autarchic Socialism'.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Quote:
Hmm...Trots theory was that the peasants would rise against the workers:
Are you insane?

Call me insane..but this is what Trot said in 1919...

`Left to its own resource, the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by the counter-revolution the moment the peasantry turns its back on it.

Trotsky did not want to "throw" the revolution in Europe.

Sure he did...here is what he said in 1919...

The Russian proletariat must on its own initiative carry the revolution on to European soil .... the Russian revolution will throw itself against old capitalist Europe.

Neither Lenin, Trotsky, nor anyone else could guarantee the success of a revolutionary movement,it depends in a number of factors

Absolutely true. And whent hose factors make a socialist revolution in Europe impossible...Lenin recognized that fact and focused on developing socialim in the USSR first...Trotsky kept up his idealism...even when it was clear it was a dead dream.

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution said that the bourgeoisie in backward countries was incapable of making a democratic revolution, and that therefore the proletariat, supported by the peasantry, would have to over directly to the socialist revolution. That is, the revolution would have to be made "permanent." This is exactly what happened in 1917.

Thats only part of it....and it is not his part at all. Marx said it a long time before he did...Trotsky just copied it. The part that was Trotsky's was the part where he said the proletariats would lose support from the peasantry who would turn their back on it...and the only hope for the Russians was to throw themselves into Europe.

Yes. Due mainly to the fact that Lenin was forced underground, Trotsky became the voice of the Bolshevik Party, and led the insurrection in Petrograd, the vanguard of the revolution.

It was Trotsky who did the actual leading of the insurrection.

Ahh...more Trot falsification of history.

True...Trotsky was elected chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee in Petrograd. But as such...he did not carry out any special role in "leading" the revolution. As its chairman...he only carried out the orders of the CC of the Party and of the Committee itself....This was not a Trot personal dictatorship.

Nor was the Military Revolutionary Committee what LED the uprising. For that task the CC had created a "center" of five people. These five people were : Sverdlov, Stalin, Dzerzhinzky, Bubnov, Uritsky. Their task "to direct all the practical organs of the uprising in conformity with the directives of the Central Committee."

So you see...the CC appointed the tast of leading the uprising to this "center". The Military Revolutionary Committee was only one of MANY organizations aiding in the uprising...but not its leader.

And strangely enough...the CC chose some ignorant fat ugly Georigians and Poles to lead it...instead of the brillinat shining light of man kind Trotsky...


Trotsky's role was an important one...but there were many people with many important roles. This was not a one man revolution...as Trotsky always wants to portray. It was HE and ONLY HE who led the uprising...no one else existed. Trotsky was a megalomaniac...and nothing more...

[Leonid Brezhnev]

Call me insane..but this is what Trot said in 1919...

Lenin argued that the peasantry should be mobilised by the workers in order to carry through the democratic, anti-feudal tasks. The moment the workers begin to press forward to socialism, the class antagonisms begin to assert themselves, the reactionary Bonapartist tendencies among the peasantry, which Lenin repeatedly warned against, would be turned against the proletariat. In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population consisted of peasants the struggle for socialism would encounter the most serious and determined opposition from the wealthier strata of the peasantry.

Sure he did...here is what he said in 1919...

Give me also the title of the book comrade,it is too easy to use quotes without refering to the books titles...

Absolutely true. And whent hose factors make a socialist revolution in Europe impossible...Lenin recognized that fact and focused on developing socialim in the USSR first...Trotsky kept up his idealism...even when it was clear it was a dead dream.

No,it was both Lenin and Trotsky that made realistic prognoses about this matter and both understand it

Trotsky's role was an important one...but there were many people with many important roles. This was not a one man revolution...as Trotsky always wants to portray. It was HE and ONLY HE who led the uprising...no one else existed. Trotsky was a megalomaniac...and nothing more...

No he wasnt a megalomaniac,Trotsky says in his autobiography that if he had not been in Russia in October, the revolution would still have taken place providing Lenin was present. But if Lenin wasn't present and he was, the revolution wouldn't have happened.Does this shows to you that he believed that he was the one who led the uprising and no one else existed ?

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

the struggle for socialism would encounter the most serious and determined opposition from the wealthier strata of the peasantry.

Of course...the Kulaks. That does not mean the peasantry in general.

Lenin called for a dictatorship of the proletariat AND peasantry...

Give me also the title of the book comrade,it is too easy to use quotes without refering to the books titles...

What does it matter..Trot's books all have the same name...But if you must know...its "Results and Prospects"...his 1919 edition (which was an edition of his 1906 publication...he liked to repeat his words over and over and change them to fit the situation...)

No,it was both Lenin and Trotsky that made realistic prognoses about this matter and both understand it

But they came to different conclusions.

No he wasnt a megalomaniac,

Sure....I was the leading force in the Revolution...I was Lenin's favorite...I was Lenin's rightful sucessor...but for some reason the ignorant Georigian with the help of his Polish friends tricked me....not a lot of modesty in this man....

[Leonid Brezhnev]

Of course...the Kulaks. That does not mean the peasantry in general.

Lenin called for a dictatorship of the proletariat AND peasantry...

Trotsky said that at no time in history had the peasantry ever been able to play an independent role. The fate of the Russian revolution would be decided by the outcome of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the peasant masses. The peasantry could either be used as an instrument of revolution or of reaction. At all events, the only possible outcome of the revolution was either the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which would fall into the arms of Tsarist reaction, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasantry.Which Lenin later abandoned... "Whoever speaks now of a 'revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry' is behind the times, has consequently gone over to the side of the petty bourgeoisie and is against the proletarian class struggle. He deserves to be consigned to the archive of 'Bolshevik' pre-revolutionary antiques (which might be called the archive of 'old Bolsheviks')." (Lenin, Letters on Tactics, Selected Works, vol. 6, page 34)
"This fact does not fit into the old scheme. One must know how to adapt schemes to facts, rather than repeat words regarding a 'dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry'?in general words which have become meaningless.Lenin. Lenin himself completely discarded the slogan of the "democratic dictatorship" in April, 1917.

What does it matter..Trot's books all have the same name...But if you must know...its "Results and Prospects"...his 1919 edition (which was an edition of his 1906 publication...he liked to repeat his words over and over and change them to fit the situation...)

Have you got any link that it has it and in which chapter ?I am asking a link because I am not sure that marxists.org will have in this edition you say.

But they came to different conclusions.

They understood that the only real guarantee for the future of the Soviet Republic lay in the socialist revolution in the West. They did not lull the working class with sugary illusions about "peaceful co-existence" but mercilessly hammered home the fact that without a socialist transformation on a world scale, new imperialist world wars - a second, a third, a tenth world war - would be inevitable.

Sure....I was the leading force in the Revolution...I was Lenin's favorite...I was Lenin's rightful sucessor...but for some reason the ignorant Georigian with the help of his Polish friends tricked me....not a lot of modesty in this man....

I dont believe that Trotsky would show such a megalomaniac character that would easily critisized and show a very bad appereance of him.

[Vassili Zaitsev]

Okay first off, let me just say that anyone here who thinks Lenin picked Trotsky to suceed him has really been smokin' some serious shit because anyone who has read any of Lenin's books knows that Lenin was against opportunists, whom Trotsky was. Lenin criticized opportunist Socialists ast the betrayers of Socialism for their stand on the question of annexations. And Lenin says in his afterward for his famous book "State and revolution": "It is more pleasant and more useful to live through the experience of a revolution than to write about it." Trotskies were really staunched on opportunism, which Lenin was against, and Trots sit around writing about revolutions while Marxist-Leninists are following in Lenin's footsteps by making revolutions happen. Name one Trotskyist who started a successful Marxist revolution, then we'll talk.

[Sandino]

Well, Stalinists, I have to tip my hat to you. You have done your best to try to dig up some quote from Lenin to support the "theory" of "socialism in one country." There is something plucky about that. But, in the end, it is a futile exercise. Everything Lenin ever said about the revolution repeatedly emphasized that it would have to be international in order to survive. The idea of "socialism in one country" would have sounded absurd to Lenin, as indeed it is.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well, Stalinists, I have to tip my hat to you. You have done your best to try to dig up some quote from Lenin to support the "theory" of "socialism in one country." There is something plucky about that. But, in the end, it is a futile exercise. Everything Lenin ever said about the revolution repeatedly emphasized that it would have to be international in order to survive. The idea of "socialism in one country" would have sounded absurd to Lenin, as indeed it is.

I don't understand you. Is this your method of accepting defeat - by both admitting and refusing it?

[Sandino]

I don't understand you. Is this your method of accepting defeat - by both admitting and refusing it?

No, it is to point out that despite your best efforts, it is not possible to find in any of Lenin's writings or speeches anything that even remotely justifies the "theory" of "socialism in one country." Those that try to do this embark on a Sisyphisian labor that is doomed to failure.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So, are you even going to attempt to refute that for which you previously took off your hat, or will you simply continue to waste my time by postings of such trivial comments?



"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."

- V.I. Lenin; On The Slogan For A United States Of Europe - August 23 1915