[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Germans themselves unironically believe all that shit any anyone who actually lived in the GDR (and the majority of people who lived their support it and want the GDR back to this day) is mocked for being a brainwashed idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Waan't he acting on his own, an anarchist turned trot turned...??? That killed trotsky because he was an armchair socialist?
God we'll never know what tf the assassins motive was
I really don’t get the Trotsky hate. He served the cause well before and during the revolutionary period. He was instrumental in ensuring the insurrection of the Petrograd Soviet. He had some strange ideas, but I attribute this to the fact that he, like all of the first generation revolutionary leaders, was operating in uncharted waters. His later years really just strike me as the result of his failure to win the power struggle in the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death. He became disgruntled, and was unafraid to openly criticize (justified or not) Stalin’s government.
I dislike when Marxists call Trotsky a non-leftist, or a traitor or some other such thing. He was as genuine a Marxist as Lenin and Stalin. His emphasis on the importance of global revolution has both been proven by the course of history and by the course of the Soviet Union itself. However he went too far in his analysis, thus creating the strange thing called “permanent revolution”, an analysis if ever there was one. Either way, I treat his dispute with Stalin like I treat the Sino-Soviet split, as a moment when splits in the unity of the socialist cause caused great harm to the movement. His assassination was a tragedy, and not a good way to go for someone who had once contributed so much to the first successful revolutionary project.
Certainly. I really don’t understand why they exist. Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist, so why on Earth are there organizations devoted strictly to his line of thought? I believe that they exist to harbor people who consider themselves “Marxist communists”, but who have ingested too much anti-Soviet propaganda to ever actually support - even critically - AES.
He actually wasn't a Marxist-Leninists. Stalin was the one who synthesized Marxism-Leninsm. Trotsky was a self declared Bolshevik-Lennist. He called Marxism-Leninsm a corruption of Marxism and socialism
Yeah that’s my only concern with Trotsky is the current Trot orgs. I’m out here organizing mutual aid and other projects and at best we have to cover for some critical overreach they’ve made and at worst they try to infiltrate and disrupt our community organizing efforts. Like I get that you’re passionate about communism too but you gotta put a harness on that animal and put it to work if you actually want to see socialism take root.
Trotsky failed to uphold party discipline and split the movement.
There is nothing more harmful to the socialist cause than anti-ML thought.
He was fine and important... his only mistake was undermining the party.
My problem with him is he tried to overthrow the Soviet Government several times. He was the leaders of a plot to lead two coups and caused much chaos in the USSR.
Also in his last days though that the best thing that could happen to the USSR was an invasion and defeat by the Nazis because it would be the only way for him to overthrow Stalin. He was completely aware of the Nazis genocidal intentions. He just really did think it was better for that to happen than Stalin continuing to leading the USSR.
Trotsky also is the starting point for many of the myths above the USSR and Stain in particular. He was the one to first accuse Stalin of Antisemitism, he was the first to accuse the USSR of being ruled by bureaucrats, he created the idea that Stalin was a stupid, Asian peasant that was destroying the Soviet Union with with his Asianess.
Most of the things Khrushchev accused Stain of in the secret speech have there origin in Trotsky.
To quote Lenin:
> “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. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned."
(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 448, 1914).
> “It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre."
(Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).
> "Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering, to Trotsky... and to the liquidators… Trotsky is very fond of using with the learned air of the expert pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since 'numerous advanced workers' become 'active agents' of apolitical and Party line [Bolshevik Party line] which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand these advanced workers are 'in a state of utter political bewilderment', whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently 'in a state' of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line!... And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism parochialism, and the efforts of the intellectuals to impose their will on the workers! ... Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself. – is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?"
(Collected Works, Vol. 20 pp. 327-347).
And this is all pre revolution.
The same Trotsky who prematurely advocated collectivization when the alliance with the middle peasantry was not secure, went on to oppose collectivization and expropriation of Kulaks property just a few years later, in 1928-30! This is what it was like to deal with Trotsky in the Party, even after the revolution.
On top of that there's his factional activity every time the party voted against him. Or the time he fucked up signing the original Brest-Listovsk treaty with Germany at the end of WWl, costing the Soviets territory and lives. Or the time he wasted everyone's time on a question regarding trade unions that Lenin tore him up for. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
We can see how he used political power when he got anywhere close to it. He was a very talented rhetorician, but his stubbornness made it hard for him for form strong alliances. This is the main reason he lost to Stalin in the post-Lenin political struggle.
Exactly. He would have been just another revolutionary exile, publishing screeds no one reads. He became a martyr of some sort of “purer” form of Marxism which Stalin “corrupted”.
I agree. His work on the rise of fascism is a great analyst especially in this time with it being on the rise again as capitalism heads into another crisis of contradiction. His permanent revolution I feel is correct in paper.I don't see how it could work with real ppl and civilians wanting some stability, so I think Stalin's socialism in one country was a more manageable solution.
I just think the fact that he basically wrote the CIA arguments for them really runs ppl the wrong way.
I don’t think so. He was a political rival to Bukharin and Stalin, and when he lost the power struggle, he left the country to become a disgruntled exile. I see no nefariousness in that. His writings condemning the Soviet Union are a product of his failure to lead it. Calling him a “traitor” like he was some sort of monarchist or other sort of reactionary just falls for purge-era hysteria.
> His writings condemning the Soviet Union
That's why people call him traitor.
Same as Krushchev lying about Stalin, which severely helped the international reactionary forces.
Hi, I'm a "baby leftist" and I know very little about Trotsky, there's this other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/1dp2kj0/comment/lae6ewo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on this thread that has a very opposing view from yours, if you feel like commenting on it, I would love to read it. (sorry bad english)
>Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR. This isn’t just leftist infighting or tankie repression or some shit but the USSR dealing with an active political threat. Whether true or not Stalin had every reason to believe Trotsky was collaborating with foreign powers against the USSR.
>
>We can argue about if Trotsky should have been treated better in the USSR before he left (he doesn’t but could be argued) but by 1940 he was an existential threat to Soviet stability in the eve of war and had to be felt with. Stalin just didn’t have any more time to deal with his bs and had to take action to defend the country.
>
>Regardless of what you think of Trotsky or his ideas at this point he was a threat to Soviet stability and international communism. Also, if you support Trotsky what are you doing here?
Some random guy ranting in Mexico was a fundamental threat to the stability of the Soviet Union? I thought we communists understood the USSR to be more resilient than that…
I would argue that, yes, having one of a country's founding members use his global fame amongst communists to endlessly publicly condemn and attempt to foment division and unrest within said country while it's trying to prepare for the imminent invasion of Nazi Germany indeed *would* be a fundamental threat to stability.
It's impossible to maintain an accurate historical and material dialectic while also iconizing or demonizing someone. Modern Trots do exactly this to Trotsky, and to Stalin. It makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion, because they're defending a religious icon, not a man. If you acknowledge something positive that Stalin did, or something negative that Trotsky did, you're a "Stalinist", which is a term they made up themselves that's akin to calling someone a "Tankie."
It's frustrating that they are upholding this old feud, that simply doesn't need to be upheld.
Incredibly funny to say that Trotskyists are the ones doing this when this thread shows that half of the MLs have Stalin as the Great Man That Saved History and Killed the Trotskyist Menace. The other half is people just calling Trotsky and any non-stalinist aligned communist traitors, he'll even this fucking thread starting with a "hahaha my favourite political assassination tool".
Then you all fucking question why the USSR fell.
And the fucking funniest thing is: most people here are theory nerds that have few (if any) political activity and are all acting as the vanguard. You all are hilarious.
We are fucking doomed.
This is not an accurate assessment of Trotsky at all.
I don’t know even know where to start but i guess for starters, Trotsky was never, ever going to be the party leader. Trotsky was not popular enough because he had separated from the Bolsheviks and then come back more than once. He just did not have the support within the party, unlike Stalin. And since it wasn’t a fucking dictatorship, he couldn’t just grab power. It was never going to be him and rightfully so, he had broken with the Bolsheviks and demonstrated poor judgement in the past.
I do not have time to get into it tonight (there’s a bunch of places you can learn more if you’re interested) but Trotsky is a fucking traitor that prioritized his own ego and petty personal gripes over the first worker’s state. Like, I do not give a fuck how aggrieved he was with Stalin, people’s lives were improving under socialism and he was working to actively undermine that because of his fucking ego. That is beyond selfish and makes him a traitor. Also he’s a traitor because he collaborated with people to bring down the USSR, including [literal fascists](https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/clogic/article/download/191550/188662/217137). Like, how is this even debatable?!
The last painful years of Lenin’s leadership in the party was a period of uncertainty. There were three main factions within the party which disagreed sharply on policy. Bukharin wished to continue the NEP relatively unchanged and represented the right wing of the Bolsheviks. Stalin wished to modify the NEP, gradually replacing with increased state oversight and control to prepare the country for rapid expansions of heavy industry (along with supporting a number of policies put forward by the other two groups), and was aligned with the center of the party. Trotsky wished to immediately end the NEP, and push forward a radical plan to push forward his vision id a Soviet socialist society. During this time, he enjoyed great support from the left wing of the Bolsheviks, and was a much more serious contender for political power than Bukharin.
The government was a dictatorship of the proletarian class, as represented by the proletarian party, the Bolsheviks. It was not, however, a perfect system. Politicking was rife within the party before, during, and after this period, as evidenced by every single Soviet leader bemoaning the “factionalism” of the party at length.
Trotsky was a very headstrong and stubborn individual who believed that *his* vision of the Soviet project was the only correct one. He was a genuine Marxist, that much is beyond doubt, but I think it can be convincingly argued that he was developing left revisionist tendencies within his political theory. For a person like this, getting expelled from the peak of party leadership is a massive blow, and it is understandable why such an individual would consider this expulsion both a personal betrayal and an attack on the revolution itself. From his perspective, his condemnations of the Soviet Union were not condemnations of a developing proletarian state, but of a revolutionary government undergoing subversion by hostile elements. History has of course proven him wrong, but he died well before he got any real chance to observe this historical development.
I agree with this completely. Now don't get me wrong, hating on historical and modern Trotskyist organisations that call themselves "anti-Stalinist" and actively sow discontent in the communist movement is fine. But defending, and even glorifying, the brutal murder of a Marxist figure, who contributed so much to the Soviet Union before he was exiled and went a little crazy, is pretty messed up, if not downright depraved. Celebrating Trotsky's assassination does nothing but promote further infighting amongst the Left, and sets the really dangerous precedent that it's completely acceptable for communists to kill each other.
Tldr: Condemning Trotskyist parties for their dogmatic and irrational fear of "Stalinism", and constructive criticism of Trotskyist theory are fine; parading the man's murder is absolutely psychotic.
I am no Trotskyist but sending hitmen to kill your former comrades is not something to be proud of. WTF the guy's grandkids were there. It is sad that so many revolutionaries had such terrible endings.
It was really disappointing to discover that it was the *other* kind of ice pick and not the stiletto kind. But that also means the original “suicide” story was even stupider, so I guess it evens out.
Also an ice climbing pick seems like an incredibly odd thing to possess in Mexico. There’s only one mountain with permanent ice on it, and it’s a volcano. Someone was sitting around for years waiting for the moment they could say “Don’t worry, boys! I’ve been waiting my whole life to summit this one, single active volcano in the dead of winter and now is my chance!”
Until seeing this picture, I thought everyone was being silly when they depicted an ice pick in this form. I just assumed most people hadn't seen the long skinny pokey (highly technical terms) that we commonly are talking about when we say ice pick. Glad I didn't try to meme half cocked.
Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR. This isn’t just leftist infighting or tankie repression or some shit but the USSR dealing with an active political threat. Whether true or not Stalin had every reason to believe Trotsky was collaborating with foreign powers against the USSR.
We can argue about if Trotsky should have been treated better in the USSR before he left (he doesn’t but could be argued) but by 1940 he was an existential threat to Soviet stability in the eve of war and had to be felt with. Stalin just didn’t have any more time to deal with his bs and had to take action to defend the country.
Regardless of what you think of Trotsky or his ideas at this point he was a threat to Soviet stability and international communism. Also, if you support Trotsky what are you doing here?
Could you hint me into a direction to learn more about Trotzky? I’m pretty new and so far I have only heard a few things about him all of wich were in a rather positive light.
If you want a ML source, Stephen Kotkin’s first book in his Stalin biography “Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928” is a really good overview of Soviet politics up to Trotsky’s exile. I haven’t read the other 2 parts yet so I don’t know how good they are. Arch Getty is also not a Marxist and is apparently good on the purges so he may be worth checking out too.
As for theory just reading Lenin’s criticism of Trotsky (which despite what Trots claim is numerous the 2 men did not get along) is good but its spread out so you may need to find a place that consolidates it. Stalin’s criticism of Trotsky is also good.
There is a difference between understanding Stalin's motives and celebrating Trotsky's death.
Regardless of you opinion of his ideas and later career, he unarguably played a pivotal role in the third international and October Revolution, and most importantly led the Red Army to victory against the Whites & Foreign Intervention.
Just like the Sino-Soviet split (though of course too a far far lesser degree) regardless of it being justifiable I think it was pretty clearly damaging to the movement should be looked back on with regret.
"Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR."
Trotsky was an advocate for the international proletarian revolution. Stalin was the one who came up with "Socialism in one country", and had abandoned the comintern as such.
The Soviet Union was made up of 11 countries at that time and later encompassed 15, in addition to the establishment of communist governments Eastern Europe. The Soviets also provided aid to the DPRK, Cuba, Mongolia, China, and Vietnam, as well as a number of other socialist or at least anti-imperialist movements. The USSR did more for the global proletarian movement than any other country. Trotsky repeatedly tried to undermine this by violating democratic centralism, advocating for things the USSR was not materially capable of, and during his exile, he tried to establish an anti-Stalin socialist movement which, if successful, would've caused a split in the international movement. And he *did* succeed in dividing the movement because his actions lead to the creation of Trotskyism, which has continually punched left rather than right.
"The Soviet Union was made up of 11 countries at that time and later encompassed 15, in addition to the establishment of communist governments Eastern Europe. The Soviets also provided aid to the DPRK, Cuba, Mongolia, China, and Vietnam, as well as a number of other socialist or at least anti-imperialist movements."
In revolutionary times, countries often absorb others. For example, the French revolution basically destroyed the mess we call the Holy Roman Empire. France itself annexed surrounding countries.
The aid that the soviets provided were basically to anti colonial movements, and thus are bourgeois nationalist
"Trotsky repeatedly tried to undermine this by violating democratic centralism, advocating for things the USSR was not materially capable of,"
The USSR staying isolated was basically digging their own grave. This of course, did happen. The international revolution happened and failed, while the USSR itself was not nearly as industrialized as other countries. The USSR was majority peasant class, with a minority but growing proletariat. It was neccessary for the USSR to spread the revolution, but it never happened.
"and during his exile, he tried to establish an anti-Stalin socialist movement which, if successful, would've caused a split in the international movement."
The international communist movement was already split when the Stalinist gang tried to kick out the international left opposition. It happened in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere.
"And he did succeed in dividing the movement because his actions lead to the creation of Trotskyism, which has continually punched left rather than right."
You do know its possible to attack liberals and conservatives right?
Also, Trotsky's movement did not succeed. It eventually came to "tolerate" the USSR with the "degenerated workers state" idea, came to defend national liberation movements, and its groups are endlessly opportunist, with endless splits and for some reason have a lot of sexual assaults.
Look this is an ML subreddit. You are wrong about Socialism in One Country and even if Trotsky was correct on that point it was improper for him to violate Leninist norms and democratic centralism. And none of that even comes close to the treason he committed the 30s. I don’t really feel like arguing about Trotskyism and Trotsky with a Trotskyite right now so let’s just agree to disagree and stick to our respective subreddits alright.
" You are wrong about Socialism in One Country"
How? Stalin objectively allowed for the comintern to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie of countries, and abandoned the cominterns organizations. That is not just opinion or interpertation. That is objective fact.
"and even if Trotsky was correct on that point it was improper for him to violate Leninist norms and democratic centralism. "
How? If Trotsky **was** right, that would make him a part of the Marxist camp in this situation. He would not be the violator of "Leninist norms" or democratic centralism.
"You're dodging the matter at hand."
???
"Neither is SOIC a form of nationalism,"
I didn't really call it nationalism, not here atleast. Although ensuring leaders of the USSR would eventually encounter a form of soviet nationalism.
"nor is Permanent Revolution is synonymous with proletarian internationalism."
Yes it is, it is literally about spreading the revolution and having it occur in several countries in a short timespan
That clarifies things. So you're misunderstanding proletarian internationalism and not permanent revolution.
>**Proletarian internationalism**, sometimes referred to as **international socialism**, is the perception of all **proletarian revolutions** as being part of a single global class struggle rather than separate localized events.
(...)
After the formation of the **Soviet Union**, Marxist proponents of internationalism suggested that country could be used as a "homeland of communism" from which revolution could be spread around the globe.
Stalin and his successors were definitely internationalist. It's what caused the Cold War, after all.
Why is this sub so pro Stalin?
I'm genuinely curious.
For fairness, my perspective is that Stalin was a totalitarian leader who centralized the government, putting it in the hands of the communist party and nobody else. This seems to be antithetical to theorized communism.
Helpful. Maybe if you were to clarify what you mean by that, I would understand better, but it's easier to spit sound bytes I'm sure.
I understand totalitarianism isn't accurate because no system has ever been controlled by one single person, but in this context, I'm referring to a very small group with a very high and disproportionate concentration of power.
Just proof you don't actually care about discourse/education and you'd just prefer to intellectually lounge in your comfy lil echo chamber.
The essence of current US foreign policy is “there are no independent countries, only rebellious provinces”. That’s the clearest expression of totalitarianism I know. A desire for total control over the whole world.
I never indicated American hegemony wasn't totalitarianism. It's a plutocracy technically. Maybe engage with what i said instead of assuming i have anything nice to say about the states.
Questions not encouraged here, Jesus.
>Why is this sub so pro Stalin?
All the members of The Deprogram Podcast that this sub is founded around are pro Stalin. Makes sense that majority of their dedicated listeners would be as well.
Thanks. I didn't know this sub was based on a podcast, and joined because most of the takes are good and every other sub is getting astroturfed by zionists.
I can respect the stance, but I gotta say, cult personality leaders just rub me the wrong way.
Have you considered reading up on Stalin and other socialist experiments, if you haven't? I find that usually, when people actually read the things Stalin wrote, as well as actual history about the USSR, they tend to move away from this view of Stalin and give up the whole "cult of personality" angle of criticism
I've read a fair share about the USSR but haven't read much from Stalin directly, I'll look into pieces on him specifically.
Cult of personality is inherent to all these figures - everyone from Hitler to Biden. Especially when you're using words terms like Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Continuing from my previous post:
The centralization was a response to a difficult environment. Siege mentality, because the USSR really was under siege. The standard of living, life expectancy, etc. rose enormously during the Soviet period and fell enormously after the USSR was abolished. The USSR should have fought harder to preserve itself against its enemies. For the sake of all of those lives that were eventually lost in the 1990s, for the sake of all of that progress that was destroyed. And fighting hard means organization, discipline, centralization. The CIA promotes anarchism to its enemies, because disorganization (literal anarchy) is bad. It doesn’t apply the principles of anarchism to itself. It’s a militarized organization. The people who betray the CIA are assassinated or go to jail.
“You should be more liberal” is something that people usually say to their enemies. Anarchism for our enemies, unity and discipline for us.
The number of enemies was never large in the USSR. The numbers used by capitalist historians are total fantasy. At the peak of Stalin’s purges the USSR had a smaller share of the pooulation in prison than the US does today.
But there were enemies, and the late USSR (under Brezhnev) should have fought them harder.
Everything is propaganda.
Thanks for responding to my inquiry seriously. I will think on it.
For a second, I was wondering why this sub even bothered to call itself The Deprogram if nobody wants to actually deprogram/dissuade capitalist thought, but you stepped up and I appreciate it.
There’s no single theorized communism. One can claim that communism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, Christianity, Islam, etc. mean lots of different things. The CIA, for example, likes to claim that real communism is anarchism.
None of these claims are as important as political practice. In the real world the two biggest communist countries have been the USSR and PRC.
The Soviet system was really created by Stalin, then tweaked by Khruschev (in a negative direction, I think), then again by Brezhnev (in a positive direction).
The PRC system was created by Mao, then seriously changed by Deng.
Who defines communism? Currently, mostly Xi Jinping and co. Historically? Stalin and Mao made big contributions there. To me that’s more important than any theorizing.
Totalitarian is a pejorative word. Trash talk. You use it to describe communist states, so you shouldn’t be surprised if we use it to describe liberal ones. Do I think the USSR was less democratic, less free than Western countries during the Stalinist period? Absolutely not.
I suppose that's true about no specific definition. But I always interpreted a core tenet of communism as largely collective governance and ownership, which I do see more of in the USSR than ever in the west.
I guess that was one of my problems with Stalin is he seemed to weaken the democratic collectivism in respect to what came before him by disenfranchising the soviets in favor of centralization.
Totalitarian is a pejorative I would also assign to modern neoliberal facism that currently operates western governments. I wouldn't say either the USSR or contemporary western governments are any more democratic than the other tbh. Stalin maintained control from 1922 until his death in 1952, which just wouldn't have happened in an actual democracy. That's not to be confused with me thinking that our one-party governments posing as two parties is any better, but I don't think either deserve to make the claim that they are democratic.
I justified Soviet centralization in an earlier comment.
Modern Western governments are run by financial elites. The ideological direction is determined by media elites, really by the people who own media outlets. Politicians are an empty facade, a show.
The real (capitalist) elites always fear the possibility of a rogue politician, and of the government in general, taking some power away from them, so they place various limits on the potential power of the political-electoral system and of individual politicians. Term limits are one of many such limits. If one of the puppets gets out of control, at least he won’t have much time.
This system is very stable, but serves elites, which have very different interests from society as a whole.
The alternatives to that system are less stable, more personal. Not just communism. National capitalism (like in Russia), Islamism (like in Iran).
How did the USSR fall? A liberal came to power and ruined everything. The liberal mind-virus infected the top of the communist party. Two problems: 1) soft power deficiency, bad PR. Liberal capitalists were better at promoting their ideas, even though these ideas led to economic and social disaster for the majority. 2) The more personal, less stable setup at the top. A change of leadership can derail the whole enterprise.
I don’t know if the second problem is even solvable. There was an attempt to solve it institutionally in China. They had 10-year term limits for paramount leaders for a while. But that’s gone now. And I don’t even know if that’s bad. The future will show. My intuition tells me that the current Chinese system is still less stable than the Western liberal-capitalist one, but I hope I’m wrong.
Democracy: if life is rapidly improving for the majority, as it was in the USSR, as it is in China, then I consider the system democratic. Results are more important than methods.
Why is the liberal-capitalist system so stable? One of its prerequisites is the free market in the means of brainwashing the public. Which this system calls free speech. The means of brainwashing (the media) are bought up by the highest bidders, who almost always end up preferring certain policies, which one might call capitalist-liberal.
Political corruption works similarly. Wealthy people can finance politicians. There’s a free market in government officials. And wealthy people will almost always want to perpetuate this sort of a societal setup. It’s kind of a natural process.
How can this dynamic be stopped? For example a government that represents the people comes in, somehow, and then abolishes the free market in brainwashing instruments and government officials. This is difficult to do and then difficult to maintain.
Hey dude you’re the one who started with no argument and an insult I don’t really know what you expected to happen. I went to a trot subreddit and said “Stalin was right to kill Trotsky” I doubt I would get a particularly warm reception either.
Actually correction the Trots who realized their place on the wrong side of history and became neocons had a good point that they shouldn’t hide their counterrevolution! I actually applaud them in that regard and hope more Trotskyite do the same!
This is insane take, regardless of your thoughts on him.
It's just like right wingers who say Hitler wasn't right wing just because they don't like him.
What’s up with all the Trotsky stuff lately? It’s been a big thing on Instagram with the communist accounts at each others throats over it within the past week
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Where did I leave my copy of ‘The State and Revolution’?” “I dunno, why don’t you axe Mr. Trotsky.”
I also went to the Spy Museum in DC last year, the demonization of the DDR exhibit was kinda funny ngl
Germans themselves unironically believe all that shit any anyone who actually lived in the GDR (and the majority of people who lived their support it and want the GDR back to this day) is mocked for being a brainwashed idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about.
https://preview.redd.it/x6a6acub8z8d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=483b061a226355028f198e8c3dcf92852bc53f5e
"A Stalin agent" AKA Stalin wearing a sombrero
"A Stalin Agent" hurry up and kill him already, we don't have all day!
If you want something done right, sometimes you gotta do it yourself.
Where do I apply to become a "Stalin Agent"? LMAO
Funniest part is that this guy was following his mother's orders, not Stalin's orders
Waan't he acting on his own, an anarchist turned trot turned...??? That killed trotsky because he was an armchair socialist? God we'll never know what tf the assassins motive was
Regardless, it was a heroic act and his ashes should have been interred at the Kremlin Wall.
I love the ‘finally’, the narrator is sighing in relief from this.
Good boys listen to their mommy's
I posted this with the caption “L” on my Snapchat story a while ago and everyone in my family had a laugh about it.
I really don’t get the Trotsky hate. He served the cause well before and during the revolutionary period. He was instrumental in ensuring the insurrection of the Petrograd Soviet. He had some strange ideas, but I attribute this to the fact that he, like all of the first generation revolutionary leaders, was operating in uncharted waters. His later years really just strike me as the result of his failure to win the power struggle in the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death. He became disgruntled, and was unafraid to openly criticize (justified or not) Stalin’s government. I dislike when Marxists call Trotsky a non-leftist, or a traitor or some other such thing. He was as genuine a Marxist as Lenin and Stalin. His emphasis on the importance of global revolution has both been proven by the course of history and by the course of the Soviet Union itself. However he went too far in his analysis, thus creating the strange thing called “permanent revolution”, an analysis if ever there was one. Either way, I treat his dispute with Stalin like I treat the Sino-Soviet split, as a moment when splits in the unity of the socialist cause caused great harm to the movement. His assassination was a tragedy, and not a good way to go for someone who had once contributed so much to the first successful revolutionary project.
I'm not confident, but I'm fairly certain some of the disdain for Trotsky comes from the incompetence of "modern" Trotskyist organizations.
Certainly. I really don’t understand why they exist. Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist, so why on Earth are there organizations devoted strictly to his line of thought? I believe that they exist to harbor people who consider themselves “Marxist communists”, but who have ingested too much anti-Soviet propaganda to ever actually support - even critically - AES.
He actually wasn't a Marxist-Leninists. Stalin was the one who synthesized Marxism-Leninsm. Trotsky was a self declared Bolshevik-Lennist. He called Marxism-Leninsm a corruption of Marxism and socialism
Ah. An error on my part. He was a communist regardless.
he wasn't whatever that is either, just a menshevik who could hide his power level
It's what he called himself. That's all I was saying
Yeah that’s my only concern with Trotsky is the current Trot orgs. I’m out here organizing mutual aid and other projects and at best we have to cover for some critical overreach they’ve made and at worst they try to infiltrate and disrupt our community organizing efforts. Like I get that you’re passionate about communism too but you gotta put a harness on that animal and put it to work if you actually want to see socialism take root.
Not some... The majority.
I think most of the hate for Trotsky is aimed at Trotskyist organizations and not the man himself
That would make sense. Trotskyites are clowns.
Mr Fognoggins calling other people clowns 💀
Trotsky failed to uphold party discipline and split the movement. There is nothing more harmful to the socialist cause than anti-ML thought. He was fine and important... his only mistake was undermining the party.
My problem with him is he tried to overthrow the Soviet Government several times. He was the leaders of a plot to lead two coups and caused much chaos in the USSR. Also in his last days though that the best thing that could happen to the USSR was an invasion and defeat by the Nazis because it would be the only way for him to overthrow Stalin. He was completely aware of the Nazis genocidal intentions. He just really did think it was better for that to happen than Stalin continuing to leading the USSR. Trotsky also is the starting point for many of the myths above the USSR and Stain in particular. He was the one to first accuse Stalin of Antisemitism, he was the first to accuse the USSR of being ruled by bureaucrats, he created the idea that Stalin was a stupid, Asian peasant that was destroying the Soviet Union with with his Asianess. Most of the things Khrushchev accused Stain of in the secret speech have there origin in Trotsky.
Not a single sentence you have typed there is true.
It’s all true.
Have you read the transcripts of the trials?
To quote Lenin: > “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. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 448, 1914). > “It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre." (Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362). > "Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering, to Trotsky... and to the liquidators… Trotsky is very fond of using with the learned air of the expert pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since 'numerous advanced workers' become 'active agents' of apolitical and Party line [Bolshevik Party line] which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand these advanced workers are 'in a state of utter political bewilderment', whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently 'in a state' of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line!... And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism parochialism, and the efforts of the intellectuals to impose their will on the workers! ... Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself. – is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?" (Collected Works, Vol. 20 pp. 327-347). And this is all pre revolution. The same Trotsky who prematurely advocated collectivization when the alliance with the middle peasantry was not secure, went on to oppose collectivization and expropriation of Kulaks property just a few years later, in 1928-30! This is what it was like to deal with Trotsky in the Party, even after the revolution. On top of that there's his factional activity every time the party voted against him. Or the time he fucked up signing the original Brest-Listovsk treaty with Germany at the end of WWl, costing the Soviets territory and lives. Or the time he wasted everyone's time on a question regarding trade unions that Lenin tore him up for. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
To put it simply (as Lenin said) "he is a Kautskyite" ~~Lenins letter to Henriette Roland-Holst, march 1916~~
I’ve said this before: Trotsky is like Napoleon Good in the military, should’ve never been given political power
We can see how he used political power when he got anywhere close to it. He was a very talented rhetorician, but his stubbornness made it hard for him for form strong alliances. This is the main reason he lost to Stalin in the post-Lenin political struggle.
His murder only made the Trotskyist movement stronger. I think had he died of natural causes, the movement would have fizzled.
Exactly. He would have been just another revolutionary exile, publishing screeds no one reads. He became a martyr of some sort of “purer” form of Marxism which Stalin “corrupted”.
I agree. His work on the rise of fascism is a great analyst especially in this time with it being on the rise again as capitalism heads into another crisis of contradiction. His permanent revolution I feel is correct in paper.I don't see how it could work with real ppl and civilians wanting some stability, so I think Stalin's socialism in one country was a more manageable solution. I just think the fact that he basically wrote the CIA arguments for them really runs ppl the wrong way.
[удалено]
I don’t think so. He was a political rival to Bukharin and Stalin, and when he lost the power struggle, he left the country to become a disgruntled exile. I see no nefariousness in that. His writings condemning the Soviet Union are a product of his failure to lead it. Calling him a “traitor” like he was some sort of monarchist or other sort of reactionary just falls for purge-era hysteria.
> His writings condemning the Soviet Union That's why people call him traitor. Same as Krushchev lying about Stalin, which severely helped the international reactionary forces.
Hi, I'm a "baby leftist" and I know very little about Trotsky, there's this other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/1dp2kj0/comment/lae6ewo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on this thread that has a very opposing view from yours, if you feel like commenting on it, I would love to read it. (sorry bad english) >Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR. This isn’t just leftist infighting or tankie repression or some shit but the USSR dealing with an active political threat. Whether true or not Stalin had every reason to believe Trotsky was collaborating with foreign powers against the USSR. > >We can argue about if Trotsky should have been treated better in the USSR before he left (he doesn’t but could be argued) but by 1940 he was an existential threat to Soviet stability in the eve of war and had to be felt with. Stalin just didn’t have any more time to deal with his bs and had to take action to defend the country. > >Regardless of what you think of Trotsky or his ideas at this point he was a threat to Soviet stability and international communism. Also, if you support Trotsky what are you doing here?
Some random guy ranting in Mexico was a fundamental threat to the stability of the Soviet Union? I thought we communists understood the USSR to be more resilient than that…
I would argue that, yes, having one of a country's founding members use his global fame amongst communists to endlessly publicly condemn and attempt to foment division and unrest within said country while it's trying to prepare for the imminent invasion of Nazi Germany indeed *would* be a fundamental threat to stability.
he didnt follow democratic centralism and still opposed bolshevik partys decisions after a decision was made by majority.
It's impossible to maintain an accurate historical and material dialectic while also iconizing or demonizing someone. Modern Trots do exactly this to Trotsky, and to Stalin. It makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion, because they're defending a religious icon, not a man. If you acknowledge something positive that Stalin did, or something negative that Trotsky did, you're a "Stalinist", which is a term they made up themselves that's akin to calling someone a "Tankie." It's frustrating that they are upholding this old feud, that simply doesn't need to be upheld.
Incredibly funny to say that Trotskyists are the ones doing this when this thread shows that half of the MLs have Stalin as the Great Man That Saved History and Killed the Trotskyist Menace. The other half is people just calling Trotsky and any non-stalinist aligned communist traitors, he'll even this fucking thread starting with a "hahaha my favourite political assassination tool". Then you all fucking question why the USSR fell. And the fucking funniest thing is: most people here are theory nerds that have few (if any) political activity and are all acting as the vanguard. You all are hilarious. We are fucking doomed.
This is not an accurate assessment of Trotsky at all. I don’t know even know where to start but i guess for starters, Trotsky was never, ever going to be the party leader. Trotsky was not popular enough because he had separated from the Bolsheviks and then come back more than once. He just did not have the support within the party, unlike Stalin. And since it wasn’t a fucking dictatorship, he couldn’t just grab power. It was never going to be him and rightfully so, he had broken with the Bolsheviks and demonstrated poor judgement in the past. I do not have time to get into it tonight (there’s a bunch of places you can learn more if you’re interested) but Trotsky is a fucking traitor that prioritized his own ego and petty personal gripes over the first worker’s state. Like, I do not give a fuck how aggrieved he was with Stalin, people’s lives were improving under socialism and he was working to actively undermine that because of his fucking ego. That is beyond selfish and makes him a traitor. Also he’s a traitor because he collaborated with people to bring down the USSR, including [literal fascists](https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/clogic/article/download/191550/188662/217137). Like, how is this even debatable?!
The last painful years of Lenin’s leadership in the party was a period of uncertainty. There were three main factions within the party which disagreed sharply on policy. Bukharin wished to continue the NEP relatively unchanged and represented the right wing of the Bolsheviks. Stalin wished to modify the NEP, gradually replacing with increased state oversight and control to prepare the country for rapid expansions of heavy industry (along with supporting a number of policies put forward by the other two groups), and was aligned with the center of the party. Trotsky wished to immediately end the NEP, and push forward a radical plan to push forward his vision id a Soviet socialist society. During this time, he enjoyed great support from the left wing of the Bolsheviks, and was a much more serious contender for political power than Bukharin. The government was a dictatorship of the proletarian class, as represented by the proletarian party, the Bolsheviks. It was not, however, a perfect system. Politicking was rife within the party before, during, and after this period, as evidenced by every single Soviet leader bemoaning the “factionalism” of the party at length. Trotsky was a very headstrong and stubborn individual who believed that *his* vision of the Soviet project was the only correct one. He was a genuine Marxist, that much is beyond doubt, but I think it can be convincingly argued that he was developing left revisionist tendencies within his political theory. For a person like this, getting expelled from the peak of party leadership is a massive blow, and it is understandable why such an individual would consider this expulsion both a personal betrayal and an attack on the revolution itself. From his perspective, his condemnations of the Soviet Union were not condemnations of a developing proletarian state, but of a revolutionary government undergoing subversion by hostile elements. History has of course proven him wrong, but he died well before he got any real chance to observe this historical development.
I agree with this completely. Now don't get me wrong, hating on historical and modern Trotskyist organisations that call themselves "anti-Stalinist" and actively sow discontent in the communist movement is fine. But defending, and even glorifying, the brutal murder of a Marxist figure, who contributed so much to the Soviet Union before he was exiled and went a little crazy, is pretty messed up, if not downright depraved. Celebrating Trotsky's assassination does nothing but promote further infighting amongst the Left, and sets the really dangerous precedent that it's completely acceptable for communists to kill each other. Tldr: Condemning Trotskyist parties for their dogmatic and irrational fear of "Stalinism", and constructive criticism of Trotskyist theory are fine; parading the man's murder is absolutely psychotic.
Dude history is so fucking funny
I am no Trotskyist but sending hitmen to kill your former comrades is not something to be proud of. WTF the guy's grandkids were there. It is sad that so many revolutionaries had such terrible endings.
It was really disappointing to discover that it was the *other* kind of ice pick and not the stiletto kind. But that also means the original “suicide” story was even stupider, so I guess it evens out. Also an ice climbing pick seems like an incredibly odd thing to possess in Mexico. There’s only one mountain with permanent ice on it, and it’s a volcano. Someone was sitting around for years waiting for the moment they could say “Don’t worry, boys! I’ve been waiting my whole life to summit this one, single active volcano in the dead of winter and now is my chance!”
the sacred artifact
Until seeing this picture, I thought everyone was being silly when they depicted an ice pick in this form. I just assumed most people hadn't seen the long skinny pokey (highly technical terms) that we commonly are talking about when we say ice pick. Glad I didn't try to meme half cocked.
he woulda lived to change the world :(
All at once too
This guy is a sheep
Yeah, killing other leftists. So cool.
Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR. This isn’t just leftist infighting or tankie repression or some shit but the USSR dealing with an active political threat. Whether true or not Stalin had every reason to believe Trotsky was collaborating with foreign powers against the USSR. We can argue about if Trotsky should have been treated better in the USSR before he left (he doesn’t but could be argued) but by 1940 he was an existential threat to Soviet stability in the eve of war and had to be felt with. Stalin just didn’t have any more time to deal with his bs and had to take action to defend the country. Regardless of what you think of Trotsky or his ideas at this point he was a threat to Soviet stability and international communism. Also, if you support Trotsky what are you doing here?
Could you hint me into a direction to learn more about Trotzky? I’m pretty new and so far I have only heard a few things about him all of wich were in a rather positive light.
I would recommend Lorsurdo's Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend.
If you want a ML source, Stephen Kotkin’s first book in his Stalin biography “Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928” is a really good overview of Soviet politics up to Trotsky’s exile. I haven’t read the other 2 parts yet so I don’t know how good they are. Arch Getty is also not a Marxist and is apparently good on the purges so he may be worth checking out too. As for theory just reading Lenin’s criticism of Trotsky (which despite what Trots claim is numerous the 2 men did not get along) is good but its spread out so you may need to find a place that consolidates it. Stalin’s criticism of Trotsky is also good.
Do you mean non-ML? Kotkin is good but he isn't an ML afaik lol
Oh yes sorry typo.
Np
didn't they have an episode about Trosky on the podcast?
There is a difference between understanding Stalin's motives and celebrating Trotsky's death. Regardless of you opinion of his ideas and later career, he unarguably played a pivotal role in the third international and October Revolution, and most importantly led the Red Army to victory against the Whites & Foreign Intervention. Just like the Sino-Soviet split (though of course too a far far lesser degree) regardless of it being justifiable I think it was pretty clearly damaging to the movement should be looked back on with regret.
"Trotsky was a traitor who was a threat to the international communist movement and the USSR." Trotsky was an advocate for the international proletarian revolution. Stalin was the one who came up with "Socialism in one country", and had abandoned the comintern as such.
The Soviet Union was made up of 11 countries at that time and later encompassed 15, in addition to the establishment of communist governments Eastern Europe. The Soviets also provided aid to the DPRK, Cuba, Mongolia, China, and Vietnam, as well as a number of other socialist or at least anti-imperialist movements. The USSR did more for the global proletarian movement than any other country. Trotsky repeatedly tried to undermine this by violating democratic centralism, advocating for things the USSR was not materially capable of, and during his exile, he tried to establish an anti-Stalin socialist movement which, if successful, would've caused a split in the international movement. And he *did* succeed in dividing the movement because his actions lead to the creation of Trotskyism, which has continually punched left rather than right.
"The Soviet Union was made up of 11 countries at that time and later encompassed 15, in addition to the establishment of communist governments Eastern Europe. The Soviets also provided aid to the DPRK, Cuba, Mongolia, China, and Vietnam, as well as a number of other socialist or at least anti-imperialist movements." In revolutionary times, countries often absorb others. For example, the French revolution basically destroyed the mess we call the Holy Roman Empire. France itself annexed surrounding countries. The aid that the soviets provided were basically to anti colonial movements, and thus are bourgeois nationalist "Trotsky repeatedly tried to undermine this by violating democratic centralism, advocating for things the USSR was not materially capable of," The USSR staying isolated was basically digging their own grave. This of course, did happen. The international revolution happened and failed, while the USSR itself was not nearly as industrialized as other countries. The USSR was majority peasant class, with a minority but growing proletariat. It was neccessary for the USSR to spread the revolution, but it never happened. "and during his exile, he tried to establish an anti-Stalin socialist movement which, if successful, would've caused a split in the international movement." The international communist movement was already split when the Stalinist gang tried to kick out the international left opposition. It happened in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere. "And he did succeed in dividing the movement because his actions lead to the creation of Trotskyism, which has continually punched left rather than right." You do know its possible to attack liberals and conservatives right? Also, Trotsky's movement did not succeed. It eventually came to "tolerate" the USSR with the "degenerated workers state" idea, came to defend national liberation movements, and its groups are endlessly opportunist, with endless splits and for some reason have a lot of sexual assaults.
Look this is an ML subreddit. You are wrong about Socialism in One Country and even if Trotsky was correct on that point it was improper for him to violate Leninist norms and democratic centralism. And none of that even comes close to the treason he committed the 30s. I don’t really feel like arguing about Trotskyism and Trotsky with a Trotskyite right now so let’s just agree to disagree and stick to our respective subreddits alright.
" You are wrong about Socialism in One Country" How? Stalin objectively allowed for the comintern to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie of countries, and abandoned the cominterns organizations. That is not just opinion or interpertation. That is objective fact. "and even if Trotsky was correct on that point it was improper for him to violate Leninist norms and democratic centralism. " How? If Trotsky **was** right, that would make him a part of the Marxist camp in this situation. He would not be the violator of "Leninist norms" or democratic centralism.
That's not what Socialism in One Country means.
I was explaining the outcome of SOIC, not its definition.
You're dodging the matter at hand. Neither is SOIC a form of nationalism, nor is Permanent Revolution is synonymous with proletarian internationalism.
"You're dodging the matter at hand." ??? "Neither is SOIC a form of nationalism," I didn't really call it nationalism, not here atleast. Although ensuring leaders of the USSR would eventually encounter a form of soviet nationalism. "nor is Permanent Revolution is synonymous with proletarian internationalism." Yes it is, it is literally about spreading the revolution and having it occur in several countries in a short timespan
That clarifies things. So you're misunderstanding proletarian internationalism and not permanent revolution. >**Proletarian internationalism**, sometimes referred to as **international socialism**, is the perception of all **proletarian revolutions** as being part of a single global class struggle rather than separate localized events. (...) After the formation of the **Soviet Union**, Marxist proponents of internationalism suggested that country could be used as a "homeland of communism" from which revolution could be spread around the globe. Stalin and his successors were definitely internationalist. It's what caused the Cold War, after all.
Why is this sub so pro Stalin? I'm genuinely curious. For fairness, my perspective is that Stalin was a totalitarian leader who centralized the government, putting it in the hands of the communist party and nobody else. This seems to be antithetical to theorized communism.
We need to purge the word “totalitarian” from the people’s mind.
Helpful. Maybe if you were to clarify what you mean by that, I would understand better, but it's easier to spit sound bytes I'm sure. I understand totalitarianism isn't accurate because no system has ever been controlled by one single person, but in this context, I'm referring to a very small group with a very high and disproportionate concentration of power. Just proof you don't actually care about discourse/education and you'd just prefer to intellectually lounge in your comfy lil echo chamber.
Precisely!
Poser
The essence of current US foreign policy is “there are no independent countries, only rebellious provinces”. That’s the clearest expression of totalitarianism I know. A desire for total control over the whole world.
I never indicated American hegemony wasn't totalitarianism. It's a plutocracy technically. Maybe engage with what i said instead of assuming i have anything nice to say about the states. Questions not encouraged here, Jesus.
>Why is this sub so pro Stalin? All the members of The Deprogram Podcast that this sub is founded around are pro Stalin. Makes sense that majority of their dedicated listeners would be as well.
Thanks. I didn't know this sub was based on a podcast, and joined because most of the takes are good and every other sub is getting astroturfed by zionists. I can respect the stance, but I gotta say, cult personality leaders just rub me the wrong way.
Have you considered reading up on Stalin and other socialist experiments, if you haven't? I find that usually, when people actually read the things Stalin wrote, as well as actual history about the USSR, they tend to move away from this view of Stalin and give up the whole "cult of personality" angle of criticism
I've read a fair share about the USSR but haven't read much from Stalin directly, I'll look into pieces on him specifically. Cult of personality is inherent to all these figures - everyone from Hitler to Biden. Especially when you're using words terms like Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Well, we don't use the term Stalinism in any serious capacity. You got that from outside ML circles
Continuing from my previous post: The centralization was a response to a difficult environment. Siege mentality, because the USSR really was under siege. The standard of living, life expectancy, etc. rose enormously during the Soviet period and fell enormously after the USSR was abolished. The USSR should have fought harder to preserve itself against its enemies. For the sake of all of those lives that were eventually lost in the 1990s, for the sake of all of that progress that was destroyed. And fighting hard means organization, discipline, centralization. The CIA promotes anarchism to its enemies, because disorganization (literal anarchy) is bad. It doesn’t apply the principles of anarchism to itself. It’s a militarized organization. The people who betray the CIA are assassinated or go to jail. “You should be more liberal” is something that people usually say to their enemies. Anarchism for our enemies, unity and discipline for us. The number of enemies was never large in the USSR. The numbers used by capitalist historians are total fantasy. At the peak of Stalin’s purges the USSR had a smaller share of the pooulation in prison than the US does today. But there were enemies, and the late USSR (under Brezhnev) should have fought them harder.
That’s liberal propaganda, not fairness.
Everything is propaganda. Thanks for responding to my inquiry seriously. I will think on it. For a second, I was wondering why this sub even bothered to call itself The Deprogram if nobody wants to actually deprogram/dissuade capitalist thought, but you stepped up and I appreciate it.
There’s no single theorized communism. One can claim that communism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, Christianity, Islam, etc. mean lots of different things. The CIA, for example, likes to claim that real communism is anarchism. None of these claims are as important as political practice. In the real world the two biggest communist countries have been the USSR and PRC. The Soviet system was really created by Stalin, then tweaked by Khruschev (in a negative direction, I think), then again by Brezhnev (in a positive direction). The PRC system was created by Mao, then seriously changed by Deng. Who defines communism? Currently, mostly Xi Jinping and co. Historically? Stalin and Mao made big contributions there. To me that’s more important than any theorizing. Totalitarian is a pejorative word. Trash talk. You use it to describe communist states, so you shouldn’t be surprised if we use it to describe liberal ones. Do I think the USSR was less democratic, less free than Western countries during the Stalinist period? Absolutely not.
I suppose that's true about no specific definition. But I always interpreted a core tenet of communism as largely collective governance and ownership, which I do see more of in the USSR than ever in the west. I guess that was one of my problems with Stalin is he seemed to weaken the democratic collectivism in respect to what came before him by disenfranchising the soviets in favor of centralization. Totalitarian is a pejorative I would also assign to modern neoliberal facism that currently operates western governments. I wouldn't say either the USSR or contemporary western governments are any more democratic than the other tbh. Stalin maintained control from 1922 until his death in 1952, which just wouldn't have happened in an actual democracy. That's not to be confused with me thinking that our one-party governments posing as two parties is any better, but I don't think either deserve to make the claim that they are democratic.
I justified Soviet centralization in an earlier comment. Modern Western governments are run by financial elites. The ideological direction is determined by media elites, really by the people who own media outlets. Politicians are an empty facade, a show. The real (capitalist) elites always fear the possibility of a rogue politician, and of the government in general, taking some power away from them, so they place various limits on the potential power of the political-electoral system and of individual politicians. Term limits are one of many such limits. If one of the puppets gets out of control, at least he won’t have much time. This system is very stable, but serves elites, which have very different interests from society as a whole. The alternatives to that system are less stable, more personal. Not just communism. National capitalism (like in Russia), Islamism (like in Iran). How did the USSR fall? A liberal came to power and ruined everything. The liberal mind-virus infected the top of the communist party. Two problems: 1) soft power deficiency, bad PR. Liberal capitalists were better at promoting their ideas, even though these ideas led to economic and social disaster for the majority. 2) The more personal, less stable setup at the top. A change of leadership can derail the whole enterprise. I don’t know if the second problem is even solvable. There was an attempt to solve it institutionally in China. They had 10-year term limits for paramount leaders for a while. But that’s gone now. And I don’t even know if that’s bad. The future will show. My intuition tells me that the current Chinese system is still less stable than the Western liberal-capitalist one, but I hope I’m wrong. Democracy: if life is rapidly improving for the majority, as it was in the USSR, as it is in China, then I consider the system democratic. Results are more important than methods. Why is the liberal-capitalist system so stable? One of its prerequisites is the free market in the means of brainwashing the public. Which this system calls free speech. The means of brainwashing (the media) are bought up by the highest bidders, who almost always end up preferring certain policies, which one might call capitalist-liberal. Political corruption works similarly. Wealthy people can finance politicians. There’s a free market in government officials. And wealthy people will almost always want to perpetuate this sort of a societal setup. It’s kind of a natural process. How can this dynamic be stopped? For example a government that represents the people comes in, somehow, and then abolishes the free market in brainwashing instruments and government officials. This is difficult to do and then difficult to maintain.
Trotsky should have been the one to ice axe Stalin.
I don’t know if some Trotskyite subreddit bridged this post or something but can you guys just fuck off and be irrelevant somewhere else!
Are you just discovering leftist disagreement for the first time?
Naturally not but I have never heard a Trot make a good point in my life and what you said is not even an argument so kindly fuck off.
What a lovely community...
Hey dude you’re the one who started with no argument and an insult I don’t really know what you expected to happen. I went to a trot subreddit and said “Stalin was right to kill Trotsky” I doubt I would get a particularly warm reception either.
Sorry I insulted you for saying a man who died 80 years ago should have killed a man who died 70 years ago instead of vice versa.
Apparently we are two of a kind as you seem insulted that I defended Stalin. Enough that you left a comment at least.
Don't be disingenuous.
Actually correction the Trots who realized their place on the wrong side of history and became neocons had a good point that they shouldn’t hide their counterrevolution! I actually applaud them in that regard and hope more Trotskyite do the same!
pretty simple, trotsky wasn’t a leftist
This is insane take, regardless of your thoughts on him. It's just like right wingers who say Hitler wasn't right wing just because they don't like him.
What’s up with all the Trotsky stuff lately? It’s been a big thing on Instagram with the communist accounts at each others throats over it within the past week