In 1939 Trotsky was writing on the indepence of Ukraine. This is despite the fact the Pro independence forces were bourgeois natinonalists and fascists (who would go on to setup their own SS divisions and collaborate with the Nazis). Whislst the Pro Communist forces were pro Stalin. This is full knowing that Hitler had demanded conquering Ukraine for the oil fields and Lebensraum in Meinkampf which Communists had meticulously studied for obvious reasons. -Trotsky, Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads
In the Moscow Trials (dismissed as frame ups by bourgeois and trotskyite historians) it’s asserted Trotsky wanted to carve off a huge section of the Soviet Union for Hitler, specifically the Ukraine for assistance for Trotsky and Tukhachevksy coming to power. If Trotsky had been in charge of the Soviet Union the defeatism that coloured his outlook would mean capitulating to Hitler and gifting Ukraine to the Nazis The Nazis would now have the caucas oilfields to expand and be almost unhindered in their war in the West against Britain. With a hacked off Ukraine to the Nazis the Soviets are no longer in a feasible position to move millions of troops into Bessarabia in 1940 to deter the Nazis invading Britain nor do they now have the oil capacity (having lost Ukraine) to sustain a long war. There is little now to stop General Plan Ost (which was basically to elimate the slavic race and settle their lands with Germans).
In short the Communist party collapses in the late 20s due to demoralisation or adventurism which unites the bitterly anti-Communist forces. It’s well known now that Britain colluded with Hitler under Chamberlain with Lord Halifax making statements like “Hitler and Britain will be a staunch bullwark against Communism”. By trying to wage war for spreading Communism this would’ve ended the USSR there and then In Our Time: The Chamberlain/Hitler Collusion
If somehow it doesn’t Trotsky would’ve carved off the Ukraine and left the Soviet Union a rump state leaving Hitler free to wage war on the West. Once Britain is defeated he almost certainly would’ve turned east but never having to have waged a war on 2 fronts. With a now diminished Soviet Union (Probably just a hacked back Russia as the Nazis had envisaged), the oil fields under Nazi control the Hitlerites do not come within 22km of Moscow - they take it. So ironically, Trotskys statement in 1936 becomes prophecy in Ww2
END
Some of the stuff at the end about Trotsky’s defeatism and him surrendering territory to the Nazis is perhaps too speculative - we could presume that in this situation, him actually being in power would have affected his outlook and lead to him behaving completely differently. But this kind of goes back to the earlier points that there really isn’t any reasonable situation where Trotsky does come into power - it’s all several layers of hypotheticals to even get him into that position to begin with, and we’re so far removed from reality that it’s all speculation. As JoeySteel puts in, we “magic him into producing a successful revolution” - we can also just magic him into behaving in whichever way we wish to support our argument, whether that be making him out to be a disaster or conversely somehow a saviour of the Soviet Union.
In my view (as someone who’s nowhere near as well-read, JoeySteel seemed to be pretty good about citing sources in his massive effortposts), I feel like (as JoeySteel says right at the start) there might not have been that much of a difference, because of that first point about the role of the individual in history - with Trotsky actually in power, he might have come to much the same conclusions and courses of action as Stalin. A leader doesn’t just exist in a bubble of his own personal ideology, his thinking will inevitably be affected by the conditions he and his country are in. And of course, contrary to Western propaganda, Stalin wasn’t some kind of absolute monarch - his actions were constrained by other elements of the government. He tried to resign like 5 times and they just rejected his resignation over and over again. Trotsky would have also faced that (to an even greater degree, assuming it didn’t just end up in the scenario that the party just collapses because of how disliked he was) - we’d have to, once again, just magic him into having everyone important in the party support him and all his policies.
I even have some memories of a Trotsky quote with him basically admitting that he’d have done a lot of the same stuff as Stalin, but I was never able to find a source, so I’m not sure at this point if my mind just invented that at some point.
Yo dawg, I checked back here in first time in maybe a year or so to just see whats up and see one of my old effort posts on here 🙈
Bizarre as fuck!
Only bit I disagree with is
might not have been that much of a difference
The ref to Plekhanovs work is that Stalin (or really the CC of the communist Party) represented a different trend to Trotskyism with the point being if Stalin dies of a heart attack in 1923 another Marxist-Leninist would’ve taken his place and not much would’ve been different. Another member of the CC would’ve been pushed forward to represent the CC (as Stalin did) and become the identifiable face of CPSU
The Trotskyite trend was a miniscule faction of the CPSU and the CPSU had already labelled Trotskyism as an opportunist trend in the party at the 15th Congress (1926).
So at this historical juncture the masses pushed forward a Marxist-Leninist *not a trotskyist * so the question in itself becomes fantasy with having to magic Trotsky into taking positions he opposed
PDF version of On the Opposition here which includes the debates between 1924-1927 in the party which gives a fuller picture. https://redarmy.online/viewtopic.php?t=153
And Harpal Brar did a massive book on Trotskyism Vs Leninism and the struggles during the CPSU and how the trots tiptoed themselves step by step into counter revolution (trotskys expulsion from the party leading the trots to go underground and attempt to sell Ukraine to Nazis etc. The recent Tukhachevsky transcript was released to which all but confirmed what the MLs said all these years). https://redarmy.online/viewtopic.php?t=147
The historical role of the trotskyites in the end is to disavow real socialism, real socialist progress and successful revolution with idealistic fantasy untainted by existing practice.
The trotskyites idealism and insistence in pursuing an opportunist line which dives into left adventurism (his policy on trade unions for eg.) or right opportunist (demanding the 2nd 5 year plan be stopped) is why they’ve been reviled in the communist movement for over a century now.
Stalin once made the point Trotskyism started as an opportunist (but genuine) trend in the working class movement. By the 1930s it was nothing other than a vehicle for foreign intelligence agencies and it has remained so ever since.
Anyway just saying Hello to all you fuckers, I hope you’re all well and wishing you a Stalinist Xmas xxx
continued
In 1939 Trotsky was writing on the indepence of Ukraine. This is despite the fact the Pro independence forces were bourgeois natinonalists and fascists (who would go on to setup their own SS divisions and collaborate with the Nazis). Whislst the Pro Communist forces were pro Stalin. This is full knowing that Hitler had demanded conquering Ukraine for the oil fields and Lebensraum in Meinkampf which Communists had meticulously studied for obvious reasons. -Trotsky, Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads
In the Moscow Trials (dismissed as frame ups by bourgeois and trotskyite historians) it’s asserted Trotsky wanted to carve off a huge section of the Soviet Union for Hitler, specifically the Ukraine for assistance for Trotsky and Tukhachevksy coming to power. If Trotsky had been in charge of the Soviet Union the defeatism that coloured his outlook would mean capitulating to Hitler and gifting Ukraine to the Nazis The Nazis would now have the caucas oilfields to expand and be almost unhindered in their war in the West against Britain. With a hacked off Ukraine to the Nazis the Soviets are no longer in a feasible position to move millions of troops into Bessarabia in 1940 to deter the Nazis invading Britain nor do they now have the oil capacity (having lost Ukraine) to sustain a long war. There is little now to stop General Plan Ost (which was basically to elimate the slavic race and settle their lands with Germans).
In short the Communist party collapses in the late 20s due to demoralisation or adventurism which unites the bitterly anti-Communist forces. It’s well known now that Britain colluded with Hitler under Chamberlain with Lord Halifax making statements like “Hitler and Britain will be a staunch bullwark against Communism”. By trying to wage war for spreading Communism this would’ve ended the USSR there and then In Our Time: The Chamberlain/Hitler Collusion
If somehow it doesn’t Trotsky would’ve carved off the Ukraine and left the Soviet Union a rump state leaving Hitler free to wage war on the West. Once Britain is defeated he almost certainly would’ve turned east but never having to have waged a war on 2 fronts. With a now diminished Soviet Union (Probably just a hacked back Russia as the Nazis had envisaged), the oil fields under Nazi control the Hitlerites do not come within 22km of Moscow - they take it. So ironically, Trotskys statement in 1936 becomes prophecy in Ww2
END
Some of the stuff at the end about Trotsky’s defeatism and him surrendering territory to the Nazis is perhaps too speculative - we could presume that in this situation, him actually being in power would have affected his outlook and lead to him behaving completely differently. But this kind of goes back to the earlier points that there really isn’t any reasonable situation where Trotsky does come into power - it’s all several layers of hypotheticals to even get him into that position to begin with, and we’re so far removed from reality that it’s all speculation. As JoeySteel puts in, we “magic him into producing a successful revolution” - we can also just magic him into behaving in whichever way we wish to support our argument, whether that be making him out to be a disaster or conversely somehow a saviour of the Soviet Union.
In my view (as someone who’s nowhere near as well-read, JoeySteel seemed to be pretty good about citing sources in his massive effortposts), I feel like (as JoeySteel says right at the start) there might not have been that much of a difference, because of that first point about the role of the individual in history - with Trotsky actually in power, he might have come to much the same conclusions and courses of action as Stalin. A leader doesn’t just exist in a bubble of his own personal ideology, his thinking will inevitably be affected by the conditions he and his country are in. And of course, contrary to Western propaganda, Stalin wasn’t some kind of absolute monarch - his actions were constrained by other elements of the government. He tried to resign like 5 times and they just rejected his resignation over and over again. Trotsky would have also faced that (to an even greater degree, assuming it didn’t just end up in the scenario that the party just collapses because of how disliked he was) - we’d have to, once again, just magic him into having everyone important in the party support him and all his policies.
I even have some memories of a Trotsky quote with him basically admitting that he’d have done a lot of the same stuff as Stalin, but I was never able to find a source, so I’m not sure at this point if my mind just invented that at some point.
Yo dawg, I checked back here in first time in maybe a year or so to just see whats up and see one of my old effort posts on here 🙈
Bizarre as fuck!
Only bit I disagree with is
The ref to Plekhanovs work is that Stalin (or really the CC of the communist Party) represented a different trend to Trotskyism with the point being if Stalin dies of a heart attack in 1923 another Marxist-Leninist would’ve taken his place and not much would’ve been different. Another member of the CC would’ve been pushed forward to represent the CC (as Stalin did) and become the identifiable face of CPSU
The Trotskyite trend was a miniscule faction of the CPSU and the CPSU had already labelled Trotskyism as an opportunist trend in the party at the 15th Congress (1926).
So at this historical juncture the masses pushed forward a Marxist-Leninist *not a trotskyist * so the question in itself becomes fantasy with having to magic Trotsky into taking positions he opposed
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SDD26.html#c4
PDF version of On the Opposition here which includes the debates between 1924-1927 in the party which gives a fuller picture. https://redarmy.online/viewtopic.php?t=153
And Harpal Brar did a massive book on Trotskyism Vs Leninism and the struggles during the CPSU and how the trots tiptoed themselves step by step into counter revolution (trotskys expulsion from the party leading the trots to go underground and attempt to sell Ukraine to Nazis etc. The recent Tukhachevsky transcript was released to which all but confirmed what the MLs said all these years). https://redarmy.online/viewtopic.php?t=147
The historical role of the trotskyites in the end is to disavow real socialism, real socialist progress and successful revolution with idealistic fantasy untainted by existing practice.
The trotskyites idealism and insistence in pursuing an opportunist line which dives into left adventurism (his policy on trade unions for eg.) or right opportunist (demanding the 2nd 5 year plan be stopped) is why they’ve been reviled in the communist movement for over a century now.
Stalin once made the point Trotskyism started as an opportunist (but genuine) trend in the working class movement. By the 1930s it was nothing other than a vehicle for foreign intelligence agencies and it has remained so ever since.
Anyway just saying Hello to all you fuckers, I hope you’re all well and wishing you a Stalinist Xmas xxx