Trotsky was more radical in certain areas and would likely have been less focused on building up domestic forces than Stalin. He would've also favored central planning over the NEP as well so who knows.
I agree that his approach to the rising ww2 related threats would've been different, but I generally think that the USSR would've been less prepared for war going into it than they were until Stalin. But there's a lot of speculation involved here. The point is, Stalin was a very skilled war time leader, it's unclear how successful trotsky would've been in the same place.
I think everyone's forgetting that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Great man of history is bullshit. A lot of the decisions made in the USSR were made by committee and the soviets. The reason Stalin kept power and Trotsky left was because the vast majority of the party supported Stalin's plans and rejected Trotsky's.
Bingo. The west and the western left are bewitched by the absurd religious belief that Stalin was some sort of superhuman that somehow held absolute dominance over the USSR through sheer will and supernatural abilities combined with the trotskyite lie that Trotsky himself was annointed by Lenin to become the next king of Socialism - completely ignoring the historical reality that he was a fucking nerd that nobody liked and only held on for so long because the Party wanted both him and Stalin to jointly chair the General Secretary position.
He got what he fucking deserved for being a greedy asshole.
He was literally the second most popular party official after Lenin, and at one point was a serious rival to Lenin himself. MLs insistence on painting trotsky as some dweeb who three stooged his way into his position and was actually secretly bad and everyone hated is fucking nonsense of the highest order.
Trotskys opposition won 4000 votes of the membership while the Central Committee (Stalins platform) won 724,000 votes in 1927
At the Fifteenth Party Conference, Trotsky and Zinoviev finally destroyed themselves politically. Trotsky made a lengthy speech and had to ask repeatedly for more time. He was interrupted constantly by ridicule and laughter. Zinoviev grovelled and begged for giveness for his errors. He, too, was heckled and ridiculed. Both had been arrogant in power and now they were humiliated and defeated. It was left to Bukharin to make the final savage attack on them; the delegates, thirsting for blood, applauded loudly.
The main discussion at the conference was not on the opposition, but on Stalin’s new theory of “socialism in one country.” It bore the stamp of his mind and outlook, and it marked the begin ning of the Stalinist era. The Russian revolutionary drive had been losing momentum since the end of the Civil War and the process had accelerated after Lenin’s death. A new policy was needed that would inspire the Russian people to undertake the superhuman task of carrying their country on from the October Revolution towards socialism and communism. That policy was “socialism in one country.” Its emotional appeal was overwhelm ing. It aroused a new fervor in the party, and pride in the revolu tion spread beyond the party ranks. It was a declaration of inde pendence from the West and of faith in the capacity of their country to forge ahead, creating its own future alone and unsup ported. Backward Russia, for so long treated as lagging on the outskirts of Western civilization, would show herself to be ad vanced and at the center of civilization in the coming millennium.
"Second most popular party official" yet somehow lost his bid for General Secretary to some damn swarthy asiatic Georgian hun from the Caucuses.
This flatly ignores the fact that during the 10 years that the many socialist revolutionaries spent in exile Trotters was a loyal member of the Mensheviks until he jumped ship to the Bolcheviks right before the revolution kicked off because he was an opportunistic power-hungry rat that knew which party stood at the vanguard and wanted for himself a slice of glory.
“Second most popular party official” yet somehow lost his bid for General Secretary to some damn swarthy asiatic Georgian hun from the Caucuses.
He lost to Stalin because Stalin managed to get a bunch of senior party officials on his side, because a coalition between them seemed more favourable than sole rule by Trotsky. And Stalin wasn't just some asshole.
This flatly ignores the fact that during the 10 years that the many socialist revolutionaries spent in exile Trotters was a loyal member of the Mensheviks until he jumped ship to the Bolcheviks right before the revolution kicked off because he was an opportunistic power-hungry rat that knew which party stood at the vanguard and wanted for himself a slice of glory.
He split with Lenin in 1903, and left the Mensheviks in 1904 (To work with the Bolsheviks), and was put on trial by the government in 1905 and was exiled.
Literally nothing you say has any connection to reality.
He lost to Stalin because Stalin managed to get a bunch of senior party officials on his side, because a coalition between them seemed more favourable than sole rule by Trotsky. And Stalin wasn’t just some asshole.
So he did indeed flatly loose in democratic election because he was a pretentious asshole that rested on his laurels. He should have tea with Hillary sometime.
This flatly ignores the fact that he split with Lenin in 1903 (and was denounced as a Judas, scoundrel, and a stealing swine by him), and left the Mensheviks in 1904 (To work with the Bolsheviks), (because they didn't go his way so he took the third way of getting splinters in his ass by straddling the fencepost between factions) and was put on trial by the government in 1905 and was exiled.
at best they're teens who are into socialism as a rebellion against their parents, at worst they're actual fucking psyops meant to divide the left. sounds nuts until you realize just how fucking nuts the FBI and CIA are and how much they HATE leftists
No? Trotsky was rejected for party leadership because Stalin managed to wrangle enough votes to put himself in charge, a good chunk of who voted for him because they thought he would be easier to control than Trotsky.
In October 1926, the leaders of the opposition strutted about and asserted, as they are asserting now, that the Central Committee feared the truth, that it was hiding their "platform," concealing it from the Party, and so forth. That is why they went snooping among the Party units in Moscow (recall the Aviapribor Factory), in Leningrad (recall the Putilov Works), and other places. Well, what happened? The communist workers gave our oppositionists a good drubbing, such a drubbing indeed that the leaders of the opposition were compelled to flee from the battlefield. Why did they not at that time dare to go farther, to all the Party units, to ascertain which of us fears the truth—the opposition or the Central Committee? It was because they got cold feet, being frightened by the real (and not imaginary) truth.
There's some good stuff about Kaminev and Zinoviev in there too, that passage just kinda stuck out as something showing how no one really liked those guys.
You realise that that quote... doesn't actually say anything about Trotsky's character, right?
Like if you want to highlight his wrecker tendencies, you could indeed point to his propensity for making new factions all the damn time, but this is a speech made by Stalin about Trotsky after Trotsky was defeated. It is not a reliable source of Trotsky's actual character and popularity.
Yeah, the rest of that speech goes deep into Trotsky. I just quoted that to show that the workers themselves didn't broadly support Trotsky. If they did, they wouldn't have literally beat his opposition bloc up and driven them out of town.
He literally talks about how he doesn't want to have power and tried to step down in that speech.
It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
He also talks about how he gave Trotsky more slack than most people wanted.
At the last plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission, held in August this year, some members of the plenum rebuked me for being too mild with Trotsky and Zinoviev, for advising the plenum against the immediate expulsion of Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Central Committee. (Voices from the audience: "That's right, and we rebuke you now.") Perhaps I was too kind then and made a mistake in proposing that a milder line be adopted towards Trotsky and Zinoviev. (Voices: "Quite right!" Comrade Petrovsky: "Quite right. We shall always rebuke you for a rotten 'piece of string'!") But now, comrades, after what we have gone through during these three months, after the opposition has broken the promise to dissolve its faction that it made in its special "declaration" of August 8, thereby deceiving the Party once again, after all this, there can be no more room at all for mildness. We must now step into the front rank with those comrades who are demanding that Trotsky and Zinoviev be expelled from the Central Committee. (Stormy applause. Voices: "Quite right! Quite right!" A voice from the audience: "Trotsky should be expelled from the Party.") Let the congress decide that, comrades.
Or was he just making this all up and lying to the people he was taking to? Purple who would have been really able to call him out on a lie.
Why would it have been less prepared though? If the collectivisation started earlier and the officer corps didn't get purged the Soviets would have had a stronger and more capable military at the start of the war.
Trotsky did mostly sabotage himself and his prospects by overplaying his hand but positing Stalin as some genius organizer is counterfactual, what with all the lack of coordination and missteps that plagued the Soviet industrialisation drive in the 30s. Stalin did have great political instincts and savvy manoeuvring going for him (as well as yes, being a committed communist), which ultimately is of significant importance to making a political career. Look no further than all the subsequent general secretaries for a lesson of how social networking, precisely timed intrigue/treachery and the ability to use happy accidents were instrumental in propelling certain individuals over (sometimes much more capable) others.
Trotsky was more radical in certain areas and would likely have been less focused on building up domestic forces than Stalin. He would've also favored central planning over the NEP as well so who knows.
I agree that his approach to the rising ww2 related threats would've been different, but I generally think that the USSR would've been less prepared for war going into it than they were until Stalin. But there's a lot of speculation involved here. The point is, Stalin was a very skilled war time leader, it's unclear how successful trotsky would've been in the same place.
deleted by creator
Would Trotsky have maybe been a better commander in chief vs stalin's superior organization/logistic skills?
I think everyone's forgetting that Stalin wasn't a dictator. Great man of history is bullshit. A lot of the decisions made in the USSR were made by committee and the soviets. The reason Stalin kept power and Trotsky left was because the vast majority of the party supported Stalin's plans and rejected Trotsky's.
Bingo. The west and the western left are bewitched by the absurd religious belief that Stalin was some sort of superhuman that somehow held absolute dominance over the USSR through sheer will and supernatural abilities combined with the trotskyite lie that Trotsky himself was annointed by Lenin to become the next king of Socialism - completely ignoring the historical reality that he was a fucking nerd that nobody liked and only held on for so long because the Party wanted both him and Stalin to jointly chair the General Secretary position.
He got what he fucking deserved for being a greedy asshole.
He was literally the second most popular party official after Lenin, and at one point was a serious rival to Lenin himself. MLs insistence on painting trotsky as some dweeb who three stooged his way into his position and was actually secretly bad and everyone hated is fucking nonsense of the highest order.
Trotskys opposition won 4000 votes of the membership while the Central Committee (Stalins platform) won 724,000 votes in 1927
-Ian Grey, Stalin, p. 215
Sounds really popular
"Second most popular party official" yet somehow lost his bid for General Secretary to some damn swarthy asiatic Georgian hun from the Caucuses.
This flatly ignores the fact that during the 10 years that the many socialist revolutionaries spent in exile Trotters was a loyal member of the Mensheviks until he jumped ship to the Bolcheviks right before the revolution kicked off because he was an opportunistic power-hungry rat that knew which party stood at the vanguard and wanted for himself a slice of glory.
He lost to Stalin because Stalin managed to get a bunch of senior party officials on his side, because a coalition between them seemed more favourable than sole rule by Trotsky. And Stalin wasn't just some asshole.
He split with Lenin in 1903, and left the Mensheviks in 1904 (To work with the Bolsheviks), and was put on trial by the government in 1905 and was exiled. Literally nothing you say has any connection to reality.
So he did indeed flatly loose in democratic election because he was a pretentious asshole that rested on his laurels. He should have tea with Hillary sometime.
Fixed :back-to-me-shining:
Did Trotsky personally piss in your cereal? Because this is getting seriously weird.
The fact that you've been straight up called out for being wrong and making shit up hasn't even slowed you down.
Yes, he asked to use my netflix account and then filled up my watchlist with anime trash
just watch one piece already
No. I'll die of old age before I can finish that show.
Also trottamus put SAO and Guilty Crown on my list and destroyed my recommendations.
it's best to ignore the stalinists
at best they're teens who are into socialism as a rebellion against their parents, at worst they're actual fucking psyops meant to divide the left. sounds nuts until you realize just how fucking nuts the FBI and CIA are and how much they HATE leftists
What? Are we playing the "are Russians more anti-Semitic or more racist" game here or what
No? Trotsky was rejected for party leadership because Stalin managed to wrangle enough votes to put himself in charge, a good chunk of who voted for him because they thought he would be easier to control than Trotsky.
Trotsky was always a wrecher though, especially when he formed a block with Kaminev and Zinoviev.
There's some good stuff about Kaminev and Zinoviev in there too, that passage just kinda stuck out as something showing how no one really liked those guys.
You realise that that quote... doesn't actually say anything about Trotsky's character, right? Like if you want to highlight his wrecker tendencies, you could indeed point to his propensity for making new factions all the damn time, but this is a speech made by Stalin about Trotsky after Trotsky was defeated. It is not a reliable source of Trotsky's actual character and popularity.
Yeah, the rest of that speech goes deep into Trotsky. I just quoted that to show that the workers themselves didn't broadly support Trotsky. If they did, they wouldn't have literally beat his opposition bloc up and driven them out of town.
From Stalin, who had a vested interest in keeping Trotsky from gaining any power... Right...
He literally talks about how he doesn't want to have power and tried to step down in that speech.
He also talks about how he gave Trotsky more slack than most people wanted.
Or was he just making this all up and lying to the people he was taking to? Purple who would have been really able to call him out on a lie.
Why would it have been less prepared though? If the collectivisation started earlier and the officer corps didn't get purged the Soviets would have had a stronger and more capable military at the start of the war.
Trotsky did mostly sabotage himself and his prospects by overplaying his hand but positing Stalin as some genius organizer is counterfactual, what with all the lack of coordination and missteps that plagued the Soviet industrialisation drive in the 30s. Stalin did have great political instincts and savvy manoeuvring going for him (as well as yes, being a committed communist), which ultimately is of significant importance to making a political career. Look no further than all the subsequent general secretaries for a lesson of how social networking, precisely timed intrigue/treachery and the ability to use happy accidents were instrumental in propelling certain individuals over (sometimes much more capable) others.