Leon Trotsky

Vladyc

the Destroyer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
209
Location
New York
I have generally considered Leon Trotsky communism's best chance for success. And there was a point in time when he could have staged a coup against Stalin, when he was still in control of the Red Army, and taken over the U.S.S.R.

So my question is: Had Trotsky become dictator of Russia, how different do you think he would have been from Stalin? Would he have been able to accomplish his goals without the brutality of Stalinism?
 
Hwas a compitent military leader, and thus very good at organization, and he was there working closely with Lenin from the start of the movement. On the other hand, though, he felt that Russia needed to undergo a social revolution before it could move towards true COmmunism, lenin did not, this his New Economic Policy, which wa really more like today's welfare states, with a dictatorial twist. Now that system I could see working out very well, in fact, it was the time that Russia did the best on the Soviet system. (Yes i know Stalin's five year plans put Russia through the roof in heavy industry, but that was alos during the purges, so i think it was all-in-all a worse time for Russia).
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Hwas a compitent military leader, and thus very good at organization, and he was there working closely with Lenin from the start of the movement. On the other hand, though, he felt that Russia needed to undergo a social revolution before it could move towards true COmmunism, lenin did not, this his New Economic Policy, which wa really more like today's welfare states, with a dictatorial twist. Now that system I could see working out very well, in fact, it was the time that Russia did the best on the Soviet system. (Yes i know Stalin's five year plans put Russia through the roof in heavy industry, but that was alos during the purges, so i think it was all-in-all a worse time for Russia).

Yes, although Trotsky recognized the necessity of the NEP initially, he did want to get rid of it as soon as possible. However, he was not in favor of Stalin's 5-year plans. Instead he supported a more gradual collectivization of agriculture and nationalization of industry. I'm just not sure whether this would have been possible without similar purges or other mass killings.
 
Vladyc said:
Instead he supported a more gradual collectivization of agriculture and nationalization of industry.
This is actually not accurate.
Stalin's agricultural policies were largely stolen from texts that Trotsky had written in the first years of the 20's.

Trotsky was the first to suggest confiscating the production of peasants to pay for industrialisation. Of course once Stalin did it Trotsky opposed it. Trotsky's fight with Stalin was not ideological, it was a dispute for power. Their ideologies were very similar.

Trotsky always considered Stalin as an intellectual inferior, and thought of himself as Lenin's natural heir. However after Lenin's death Stalin proved to be more politically smart, and this turned Trotsky into a very bitter man. He dedicated the rest of his life to criticise every single action taken by Stalin .

The main point is that, ideologically, there aren't much differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism.
 
luiz said:
This is actually not accurate.
Stalin's agricultural policies were largely stolen from texts that Trotsky had written in the first years of the 20's.

Trotsky was the first to suggest confiscating the production of peasants to pay for industrialisation. Of course once Stalin did it Trotsky opposed it. Trotsky's fight with Stalin was not ideological, it was a dispute for power. Their ideologies were very similar.

There is no doubt that Trotsky effectively invented the idea of collectivization, and that Stalin did steal it from him. However, in none of his early writings did he suggest something as radical as the 5-year plans. He thought of the change to complete socialism (and away from the NEP) as something that would happen over a period of decades.

Of course, since in essense the idea of forced collectivization is still the same, there would need to be some brutality and totalitarianism. But nowhere near on the scale of Stalin's mass murder.

Also, there is no way you can say that Trotsky and Stalin were ideaologically similar with regard to foreign policy.
 
Vladyc said:
There is no doubt that Trotsky effectively invented the idea of collectivization, and that Stalin did steal it from him. However, in none of his early writings did he suggest something as radical as the 5-year plans. He thought of the change to complete socialism (and away from the NEP) as something that would happen over a period of decades.

Of course, since in essense the idea of forced collectivization is still the same, there would need to be some brutality and totalitarianism. But nowhere near on the scale of Stalin's mass murder.
Trotsky's idea of collectivization was very radical, and I don't see how one could implement those ideas without resorting to large scale brutality.
Maybe it would have been slightly less brutal than it was with Stalin, since Stalin was a cold bastard. But honestly I doubt it, Trotsky was also fond of violence when it suited his agenda.

Vladyc said:
Also, there is no way you can say that Trotsky and Stalin were ideaologically similar with regard to foreign policy.
True, true. Stalinism and Trotskyism are essentially identical when it comes to domestic policies, but they differ on foreign policies.

And on this case I must say that Stalin's less confrontational politic towards the West was far smarter and better for the Soviet Union than Trotsky's insistence on funding revolutions in the "imperialist world". An isolated Soviet Union might very well had been destroyed by the Germans in WW2. Also it was the fact that Stalin had a "not-so-bad" relation with the West that allowed him to cut the Yalta deal that turned the USSR into a global superpower.
 
As it is pretty hard to get much worse than Stalin it is rather safe to say that it would have been better with Trotsky...
 
luiz said:
Trotsky's idea of collectivization was very radical, and I don't see how one could implement those ideas without resorting to large scale brutality.
Maybe it would have been slightly less brutal than it was with Stalin, since Stalin was a cold bastard. But honestly I doubt it, Trotsky was also fond of violence when it suited his agenda.

It's true that Trotsky had no qualms about killing everyone who resisted him when he was general of the Red Army in the Civil War. Not that I necessarily support such mass killings, but they might have been the only reason the Revolution survived. I don't think you compare brutality during war to what Trotsky would have done to his own people if he was in power.

luiz said:
True, true. Stalinism and Trotskyism are essentially identical when it comes to domestic policies, but they differ on foreign policies.

And on this case I must say that Stalin's less confrontational politic towards the West was far smarter and better for the Soviet Union than Trotsky's insistence on funding revolutions in the "imperialist world". An isolated Soviet Union might very well had been destroyed by the Germans in WW2. Also it was the fact that Stalin had a "not-so-bad" relation with the West that allowed him to cut the Yalta deal that turned the USSR into a global superpower.

Yes, Trotsky's confrontational attitude with the west may well have resulted in a war with the Soviet Union even separate from WWII. He was even under the delusion that he could get away with supporting a communist revolution in the U.S.

Still, one way in which Trotsky was definitely superior to Stalin was his policy towards fascism. For instance, after he was exiled from Russia the first thing he did was to go to Germany and try to stop Fascism. Had Stalin told the German communists to unite with the social democrats against Hitler, as Trotsky wanted, then there would have been no way for the Fascists to come to power.
 
Vladyc said:
I have generally considered Leon Trotsky communism's best chance for success. And there was a point in time when he could have staged a coup against Stalin, when he was still in control of the Red Army, and taken over the U.S.S.R.

So my question is: Had Trotsky become dictator of Russia, how different do you think he would have been from Stalin? Would he have been able to accomplish his goals without the brutality of Stalinism?
Trotsky was a harsh man. I dont think that he would better than Stalin.
 
I think Trotsky was probably a bit more cleverer in terms that Stalin in terms or running the army/country and so forth, rather than the skill Stalin had off wiping out piltical opposistion.

I think Trotsky would have been better prepared at the start of World War2 , in the sense that he wouldn't have had half the military killed. But he still would have been pretty brutal in his rule.

The communists best chance for sucess would honestly have been to actually listen to the demands of those who rebelled at Kronstadt.
 
I don't think that Trotsky would have succumbed to the trappings of power and the cult of personality the way that Stalid did. I also feel that Trotsky would have been more accepting of bad news and more willing to listen to differing opinions than Stalin. Trotsky had a greater knowledge of the world outside the USSR than did Stalin and hence might not have been quite so paranoid or suspicious in his dealings with foreign powers.
 
Well, if you assess Stalin's path to power - he played people off one another, taking sides as he saw fit. It is not surprising he was at least partially paranoid, his position was unstable.

Trotsky, I feel, would have perhaps taken Russia down a path that Lenin would have followed. Some historians feel Trotsky's grasp on Communist theory was almost as good as Lenin's. Worth noting is how Trotsky was originally not affiliated with the Bolsheviks, and I suspect was not the equivalent of a 'yes' man, so to a degree this suggests Trotsky must have agreed with Lenin's path. People like Stalin however could have had alternative ideological foundations to support Lenin and his version of Communism. In this regard, one could see Stalin as an intellectual inferior to Trotsky. It it this which makes me believe Trotsky would have been different to Stalin. His downfall could be considered to have been his pride however.
 
AxiomUk said:
Well, if you assess Stalin's path to power - he played people off one another, taking sides as he saw fit. It is not surprising he was at least partially paranoid, his position was unstable.

Trotsky, I feel, would have perhaps taken Russia down a path that Lenin would have followed. Some historians feel Trotsky's grasp on Communist theory was almost as good as Lenin's. Worth noting is how Trotsky was originally not affiliated with the Bolsheviks, and I suspect was not the equivalent of a 'yes' man, so to a degree this suggests Trotsky must have agreed with Lenin's path. People like Stalin however could have had alternative ideological foundations to support Lenin and his version of Communism. In this regard, one could see Stalin as an intellectual inferior to Trotsky. It it this which makes me believe Trotsky would have been different to Stalin. His downfall could be considered to have been his pride however.

Yes, Trotsky agreed almost entirely with Lenin, except in the issue of the NEP. Trotsky wanted to end the NEP much earlier and continue on a quick path to socialism.

I'm not sure how you can compare their grasp on the "communist theory", since both men created their own unique brand of communism, both of which gained large followings.

I don't think there is any doubt that Stalin was the intellectual inferior of Trotsky, but he happened to be more skilled at political manuvering. Stalin was also not inhibited by any ideas that he believed strongly enough in to hurt him politically.
 
Top Bottom