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
Np.
It’s worth reading trotsky as a marxist leninist imho, even if you don’t agree with him and even if you will probably come away with a quite poor view of the man, just for all his arguments against trots.
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
Np. It’s worth reading trotsky as a marxist leninist imho, even if you don’t agree with him and even if you will probably come away with a quite poor view of the man, just for all his arguments against trots.