Disclaimer: I'm not going to pretend to know too much about Trotsky and his history and I'm certainly not going to come to the defense of Trotskyists, we all know they're the last breed of leftists this world needs. And I'm sure we're well aware of Trotsky's personal failings, of him being an annoying, know-it-all contrarian douche.

But at the end of the day, Trotsky was a revolutionary to the bone and one of the most influential in modern human history. One could say he is one of the founding fathers of the Soviet Union. As misguided as he may have been, he dedicated his life to communism in the Soviet Union. And yet, his name was tarnished and maligned in the Soviet History books. Stalin intense hatred of Trotsky drove him to murder the man. Trotky's assassin, Ramon Mercader, was awarded the title of the Hero of the Soviet Union. I mean, damn dude, that's a bit much, right? And throughout all of Khrushev's dumbass de-Stalinization efforts, Trotsky was one of the few Soviets whose name was never rehabilitated.

All I'm asking is are we too harsh on Trotsky and do we judge him too harshly based on the actions of his followers? Do you think Lenin would agree with Stalin's treatment of Trotsky and with communist history's treatment of him?

  • Quimby [any, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    There's Trotsky the man and Trotsky's ideas. Trotsky's ideology was, as I understand it, even farther left than Stalin. That is good. Trotsky as a person fucked up. Reject great man theory!

    Also, in hindsight, Trotsky wasn't wrong about the need for global communism, as shown by the refusal of the capitalist countries to leave communist countries in peace.

    • CheGueBeara [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Being "to the left of Stalin" has a very particular meaning in th context of European / Russian socialism of the time and imo isn't useful unless we're keeping ultras in mind - and the people Lenin criticized in mind.

      The "more left" Trotsky led the Red Army, crushed all kinds of attempts at worker cooperatives and agricultural self-governance, and was heavily motivated by and published on egotistical petty bullshit that he exaggerated into general criticisms of entire movements and the USSR as a whole. Hell, he even tried to promulgate the idea that Lenin considered him his true heir. So I think it's more useful to use terms like ultra or to just describe it what he did, said, and what his cultivated impact has been, particularly in contexts where it could possibly matter nowadays. Trots starting stupid petty fights and defining themselves through opposition to AES and "Stalinists" is a long tradition that goes all the way back to our boy. Those are the bad Trots.

      Back to ideas, discussing issues like permanent revolution is valuable and he pushed that hard. Not that we should accept embracing it in a dogmatic way (again, how the bad Trots behave...), but as a good way to frame the dialectic of socialist states.

      Trotsky didn't have any special insight that capitalist countries would attack and isolate socialist ones. He had a hypothesis, among others, that the USSR should immediately export revolution to the rest of Europe, which is not actually a good idea given that Russia wasn't even industrialized and was still recovering from its civil war. "Wishful thinking" comes to mind. Russia industrialized at breakneck speed for over a decade longer and still got its face smashed in by the Nazis before delivering its own death blow. The USSR would have been crushed in its infancy and the green light to aggressively destroy all hints of socialism would've been given - basically just accelerating the cold war and destroying the first bastion of AES. At least, this is far more likely than Trotsky's speculations. Imagine how united the global Bourgeoisie would be if it weren't a minor regional power but Poland and Germany where they were dispossessed. Imagine what they'd do. Look at what they did in the face of far more tame threats like losing small colonies. Look at how each of their countries turned fascist.

      Marx underestimated the strength of reaction, particularly in its psychology vs. the contradictions created by capitalism. Trotsky did the same, as do most ultras, and it's a big part of why Western leftists have such unrealistic ideas of what socialism looks like and how it can be achieved and supported and why nihilism is a close friend of baby Western leftists.

      • Quimby [any, any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        This is a good analysis. I appreciate you sharing.

    • StellarTabi [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Trotsky’s ideology was, as I understand it, even farther left than Stalin.

      crazy that Ben Shapiro knew this.