Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: Trotsky Succeeds Lenin, How Does The World Change?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member General Urko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15,682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Trotsky Succeeds Lenin, How Does The World Change?

    As it says on the tin.
    A lot of Marxists well the Trots always claim Stallinism was the ruination of communism! And claim that because Stallinists dominated virtually all communist run countries, communism was never really tried.
    Also they bemoan the fact that communism emerged as the dominant political force in what was the most backward area it could have emerged in, unlike say Germany where it nearly took off!
    In taking Trotsky as the successor of Lenin, let us suppose Stallin was taken out of the picture in some way or other!
    Would I be right in thinking Trots appear more anarchic, even nihilistic than Stallinists!

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Shqiptar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Strypetown
    Posts
    6,308
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Stalin was a brutal, paranoid, megalomaniac. It's not unrealistic to argue that millions of Soviet citizens might have been spared had he not achieved the role of General Secretary.

    Would Trotsky have been as unprincipled? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave Hitler the freedom to wage war on two fronts. Would WWII even have occurred had Trotsky been Soviet leader? We'll never know....
    Eagla agus eaglais: an bhfuil an fhréamh teangeolaíochta céanna acu?

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,297
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Communism coming to Russia was actually a refutation of communism. As you point out, Russia was a back water, capitalism was little developed. Communism was supposed to come about in reaction to the excesses of capitalism....it was supposed to happen in England or Germany....not Russia. Popper addresses this in his, Poverty of Historicism. They're all losers, doesn't matter who was in charge

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member Ren84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Free Europe
    Posts
    49,865
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Trotskyism and Leninism: two cheeks of the same arse. Stalinism is the arsehole.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Shqiptar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Strypetown
    Posts
    6,308
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ocianain View Post
    Communism coming to Russia was actually a refutation of communism. As you point out, Russia was a back water, capitalism was little developed. Communism was supposed to come about in reaction to the excesses of capitalism....it was supposed to happen in England or Germany....not Russia. Popper addresses this in his, Poverty of Historicism. They're all losers, doesn't matter who was in charge
    The trouble with Marx is that he didn't factor in the ability of capitalists to outsource far beyond national boundaries. The world is a big place and it would have been hard for someone in the mid-19th century to imagine a time when much of Europe's manufacturing potential was being done in India and China.
    Eagla agus eaglais: an bhfuil an fhréamh teangeolaíochta céanna acu?

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,297
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shqiptar View Post
    The trouble with Marx is that he didn't factor in the ability of capitalists to outsource far beyond national boundaries. The world is a big place and it would have been hard for someone in the mid-19th century to imagine a time when much of Europe's manufacturing potential was being done in India and China.
    Pardon? That was The Empire wasn't it? Continued immunization of Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist theory indicates it has been falsified. Marx contended he identified the mover behind history and he could therefore predict its course...he was wrong. The revolution did not occur in Great Britain, where it should of with the starving of the Irish, using Welsh children as miners, and the factory conditions within England itself, it occurred in a society still stuck in feudalism. Leninism attempted to rationalize away this obvious falsification of the theory by say, "Since the revolution is a historical inevitability it does not matter where it starts" but of course it does.
    Last edited by ocianain; 27th May 2013 at 03:40 AM.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member ManOfReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4,321
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Trotsky was a cynical little twerp who hated his harmless middle class parents. That explains why he still has a following among, you guessed it, cynical little twerps who hate their harmless middle class parents. He would have been a disaster as the dictator he aspired to be but then again he would have been hard pressed to put up a higher body count than Stalin. Either way 'The Revolution' was fu*ked the minute the Bolsheviks seized power.
    Clicking an ad a day keeps Politics.ie in business.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13,677
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Considering that Trotsky was the driving force behind the New Economic Policy and all its attendant ills I doubt it would have been any better – most likely worse.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Nemesiscorporation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet earth
    Posts
    14,081
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Urko View Post
    As it says on the tin.
    A lot of Marxists well the Trots always claim Stallinism was the ruination of communism! And claim that because Stallinists dominated virtually all communist run countries, communism was never really tried.
    Also they bemoan the fact that communism emerged as the dominant political force in what was the most backward area it could have emerged in, unlike say Germany where it nearly took off!
    In taking Trotsky as the successor of Lenin, let us suppose Stallin was taken out of the picture in some way or other!
    Would I be right in thinking Trots appear more anarchic, even nihilistic than Stallinists!
    Simple, the nazi's would have defeated the Soviet Union.

    We would all be dead.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Lúidín's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I love what-if history:

    Without the Great October Socialist Revolution, eastern Europe and Russia would now be a territory of the Third Reich and old fuhrer Hitler or his successor would be attending the G8 summit.

    Without General-Secretary Stalin, Russia would not have achieved the transformation from priest-ridden, feudal squalor to industrial giant, with equality for women, universal health care, education etc etc in a quarter century.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •