My syntax was probably muddled, though I do also feel like I made it clear that I wasn’t claiming Trotsky was a fascist or even a rightist, but that he acted in such a way as to enable rightists and was interested in self-promotion to the point of resorting to wrecking and collaborating with rightists. Congrats that he was big on industrialization and Stalin later adopted that policy, it’s an observation so sharp that only a mind as fine as Orwell could catch that Trotsky sometimes put forward a correct position and Stalin sometimes changed his position to that position.
Trotsky couldn’t handle not winning the popularity contest and violated the most basic principles of democratic centralism by organizing an opposition bloc to continuously try to undercut Stalin and replace him despite not having the backing needed for the position. I furthermore reject the dichotomy you offer of pragmatism and purity as being idealist nonsense, letting someone play rebel whenever the vote doesn’t go their way is counter to democracy. Even beyond that, there was the fact that this agitation, again, involved working with rightists as a major faction of the “opposition bloc.” I can’t tell if the thing about the White was meant to deflect that as though anyone would think that’s what I meant.
And you know as well as I do that Trotsky spent his whole exile career promoting ridiculous myths, most of all the Permanent Revolution “debate,” to say nothing of his absurd leftcom stance on the Spanish Civil War which, as far as I can tell, he literally only took to be contrary to Stalin. I can say the same with his furious opposition to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which led him to considering the Nazis and Soviets to being in one camp (in his “third camp” theory, they were the second). I’ll dig it up if I really need to, but an interesting point of flip-flopping that people usually don’t mention is that he at some point as a Bolshevik argued in favor of what amounts to Blanquism, saying that the dictatorship of the party was for the fostering of democracy (in a separate debate, Stalin opposed any endorsement of a “dictatorship of the party” and I believe that when he was outvoted on this matter, he attempted to resign but this was also rejected). Nonetheless, despite Lenin and indeed even Stalin writing about the problems with bureaucracy, Trotsky gets to be some champion of the notion because of what amounted to sour grapes. However, I will admit that normally his vacillations were not based on rightism, usually they were either being an ultra or muddying reality in a way that is difficult for me to map on to the ideological framing you’re discussing (e.g. lying about the Testament). To be clear, of the possible interpretations that I mentioned in the last comment, I personally believe that Trotsky didn’t believe in anything, he was just saying things at his own convenience. I worry about how one could vacillate from his experiences in Russia to his stance on Spain otherwise, unless I missed the part where he went through and explained why and how he changed his mind.
I believe that there is a reason Lenin said things like:
Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other.
But it’s okay, because Trotsky felt the need to report to us that Lenin once said of him that there was “never a better Bolshevik,” and don’t worry about proof of this being a real statement, much less a meaningful one.
I’m curious about the quote regarding the American government that you are referencing. The correspondences I read had no comment from him on America and were instead all about him being excited to denounce Stalinism while the CPUSA was being decapitated. Idk, it seems to reflect very different priorities, but perhaps your episode was an earlier one.
I am not going to get into a debate on trotsky’s merits, because what I wanted to point out was that his merits or lack of same weren’t and aren’t the point.
Trotsky had to go because of what he he was and the potential damage that could cause to the soviet union, not because his beliefs were wrong or because he said stupid shit. Plenty of people said stupid shit and plenty of people had dumb beliefs. He had to go because he was perceived to be a threat to the stability of the state.
I apologize for not being clear enough. The original idea was “there is no way that someone could fight for the revolution and be a counterrevolutionary” and my involvement of Trotsky was that he was indeed an important figure in the revolution and civil war, but in his subsequent wrecking and willingness to work with rightists, behaved as a counterrevolutionary once he was no longer on the ascent. It has nothing to do with his policy proposals or anything like that.
And as a I said, I think his “Wrecking”, “Willingness to work with rightists” et al. wasn’t the point of why he had to go. He had to go because he had the potential of destablising the soviet union, not because he was a dipshit who said stupid shit. Trotsky could have toed the line utterly once he had gone into exile and he would still have needed to go.
I’m confused, is what I am talking about not him trying to doing destabilizing? I thought we agreed on that point, that it wasn’t just that he was such a leftist icon that he mogged Stalin, but that he was engaged in agitation and organization that was counterrevoltionary and thereby a direct and practical threat and thus his removal and eventual assassination.
No. We are not in agreement.
Trotsky did not need to be agitating for the overthrow of the soviet union to be a threat. Trotsky was not an effective political organiser in exile, he spent the majority of his time seething at Stalin and when he wasn’t doing that he was seething at Trotskyists for disliking Stalin the wrong way.
Trotsky needed to exist as a symbol of an alternative to Stalin to be a threat. It doesn’t matter if he “mogged him” (Although Trotskys role as a revolutionary hero and Stalin’s failure in Poland during the civil war was a tool used by the opposition to him until ww2) or what kind of person Trotsky actually was, but as long as he was around there would always he a lingering “what if” question. It is the same reason why Stalin’s official second in command was never a strong political contender.
I don’t understand why Stalin’s failure in Poland is such an own given the context of Trotsky fumbling the most perfunctory elements of resolving Soviet participation in the Great War, but I guess it doesn’t matter. I agree with you about Trotsky’s assassination, I think. I had the reasons for his exile – where at the time his agitation was much more damaging – in mind but the question was about executions, so I was being silly there. As much as I think Trotsky demonstrated depraved behavior in his approach to various issues while in exile, I don’t think most of it was really that consequential as far as the SU was concerned, so we do agree now that I’ve stopped confusing myself on what we’re talking about. The HUAC thing theoretically could have been bad except Trotsky’s help would have been beating a dead horse and he didn’t get to do it anyway.
Could you explain the paraphrasing I asked about a few comments ago? Where he told the Americans that the Soviet Union was still preferable to them?
it was perceived as such a fuck up critics of stalin started airing the rumor he’d lost on purpose.
It’s simply fact that it was a stain on his reputation and one he cared about.
As for your wish for clarification.
One of Trotsky’s biggest problem with Trotskyites was first campism or calls for supporting the enemies of the USSR.
Here he goes in against the trotskyist accusations of bureaucratic collectivism against the USSR and argues for support of the USSR against its political and military enemies: (Theres actually a bunch of this. This is just very succinct)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm
Here is his statement on the huac thing:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/dies2.html
He argues that banning “extremist” groups is stupid because the state never actually goes against fascists and power is always deployed against the working class (And also because he believes it lends the commubist party of america credibility it does not have). And while he has numerous critiques (Many unfair) of the soviet union he argues both against banning the communist party and against kicking "stalinist " out of socialist organizations and trade unions
My syntax was probably muddled, though I do also feel like I made it clear that I wasn’t claiming Trotsky was a fascist or even a rightist, but that he acted in such a way as to enable rightists and was interested in self-promotion to the point of resorting to wrecking and collaborating with rightists. Congrats that he was big on industrialization and Stalin later adopted that policy, it’s an observation so sharp that only a mind as fine as Orwell could catch that Trotsky sometimes put forward a correct position and Stalin sometimes changed his position to that position.
Trotsky couldn’t handle not winning the popularity contest and violated the most basic principles of democratic centralism by organizing an opposition bloc to continuously try to undercut Stalin and replace him despite not having the backing needed for the position. I furthermore reject the dichotomy you offer of pragmatism and purity as being idealist nonsense, letting someone play rebel whenever the vote doesn’t go their way is counter to democracy. Even beyond that, there was the fact that this agitation, again, involved working with rightists as a major faction of the “opposition bloc.” I can’t tell if the thing about the White was meant to deflect that as though anyone would think that’s what I meant.
And you know as well as I do that Trotsky spent his whole exile career promoting ridiculous myths, most of all the Permanent Revolution “debate,” to say nothing of his absurd leftcom stance on the Spanish Civil War which, as far as I can tell, he literally only took to be contrary to Stalin. I can say the same with his furious opposition to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which led him to considering the Nazis and Soviets to being in one camp (in his “third camp” theory, they were the second). I’ll dig it up if I really need to, but an interesting point of flip-flopping that people usually don’t mention is that he at some point as a Bolshevik argued in favor of what amounts to Blanquism, saying that the dictatorship of the party was for the fostering of democracy (in a separate debate, Stalin opposed any endorsement of a “dictatorship of the party” and I believe that when he was outvoted on this matter, he attempted to resign but this was also rejected). Nonetheless, despite Lenin and indeed even Stalin writing about the problems with bureaucracy, Trotsky gets to be some champion of the notion because of what amounted to sour grapes. However, I will admit that normally his vacillations were not based on rightism, usually they were either being an ultra or muddying reality in a way that is difficult for me to map on to the ideological framing you’re discussing (e.g. lying about the Testament). To be clear, of the possible interpretations that I mentioned in the last comment, I personally believe that Trotsky didn’t believe in anything, he was just saying things at his own convenience. I worry about how one could vacillate from his experiences in Russia to his stance on Spain otherwise, unless I missed the part where he went through and explained why and how he changed his mind.
I believe that there is a reason Lenin said things like:
But it’s okay, because Trotsky felt the need to report to us that Lenin once said of him that there was “never a better Bolshevik,” and don’t worry about proof of this being a real statement, much less a meaningful one.
I’m curious about the quote regarding the American government that you are referencing. The correspondences I read had no comment from him on America and were instead all about him being excited to denounce Stalinism while the CPUSA was being decapitated. Idk, it seems to reflect very different priorities, but perhaps your episode was an earlier one.
I am not going to get into a debate on trotsky’s merits, because what I wanted to point out was that his merits or lack of same weren’t and aren’t the point. Trotsky had to go because of what he he was and the potential damage that could cause to the soviet union, not because his beliefs were wrong or because he said stupid shit. Plenty of people said stupid shit and plenty of people had dumb beliefs. He had to go because he was perceived to be a threat to the stability of the state.
I apologize for not being clear enough. The original idea was “there is no way that someone could fight for the revolution and be a counterrevolutionary” and my involvement of Trotsky was that he was indeed an important figure in the revolution and civil war, but in his subsequent wrecking and willingness to work with rightists, behaved as a counterrevolutionary once he was no longer on the ascent. It has nothing to do with his policy proposals or anything like that.
And as a I said, I think his “Wrecking”, “Willingness to work with rightists” et al. wasn’t the point of why he had to go. He had to go because he had the potential of destablising the soviet union, not because he was a dipshit who said stupid shit. Trotsky could have toed the line utterly once he had gone into exile and he would still have needed to go.
I’m confused, is what I am talking about not him trying to doing destabilizing? I thought we agreed on that point, that it wasn’t just that he was such a leftist icon that he mogged Stalin, but that he was engaged in agitation and organization that was counterrevoltionary and thereby a direct and practical threat and thus his removal and eventual assassination.
No. We are not in agreement. Trotsky did not need to be agitating for the overthrow of the soviet union to be a threat. Trotsky was not an effective political organiser in exile, he spent the majority of his time seething at Stalin and when he wasn’t doing that he was seething at Trotskyists for disliking Stalin the wrong way. Trotsky needed to exist as a symbol of an alternative to Stalin to be a threat. It doesn’t matter if he “mogged him” (Although Trotskys role as a revolutionary hero and Stalin’s failure in Poland during the civil war was a tool used by the opposition to him until ww2) or what kind of person Trotsky actually was, but as long as he was around there would always he a lingering “what if” question. It is the same reason why Stalin’s official second in command was never a strong political contender.
I don’t understand why Stalin’s failure in Poland is such an own given the context of Trotsky fumbling the most perfunctory elements of resolving Soviet participation in the Great War, but I guess it doesn’t matter. I agree with you about Trotsky’s assassination, I think. I had the reasons for his exile – where at the time his agitation was much more damaging – in mind but the question was about executions, so I was being silly there. As much as I think Trotsky demonstrated depraved behavior in his approach to various issues while in exile, I don’t think most of it was really that consequential as far as the SU was concerned, so we do agree now that I’ve stopped confusing myself on what we’re talking about. The HUAC thing theoretically could have been bad except Trotsky’s help would have been beating a dead horse and he didn’t get to do it anyway.
Could you explain the paraphrasing I asked about a few comments ago? Where he told the Americans that the Soviet Union was still preferable to them?
it was perceived as such a fuck up critics of stalin started airing the rumor he’d lost on purpose. It’s simply fact that it was a stain on his reputation and one he cared about.
As for your wish for clarification. One of Trotsky’s biggest problem with Trotskyites was first campism or calls for supporting the enemies of the USSR.
Here he goes in against the trotskyist accusations of bureaucratic collectivism against the USSR and argues for support of the USSR against its political and military enemies: (Theres actually a bunch of this. This is just very succinct) https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm
Here is his statement on the huac thing: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/dies2.html He argues that banning “extremist” groups is stupid because the state never actually goes against fascists and power is always deployed against the working class (And also because he believes it lends the commubist party of america credibility it does not have). And while he has numerous critiques (Many unfair) of the soviet union he argues both against banning the communist party and against kicking "stalinist " out of socialist organizations and trade unions
Thank you for the sources