- But I will stop pursuing this issue because I have an impression that many want to put blame for everything personally on Stalin, and I have no interest in fighting "useful idiots" supporting "improved" models of Communism, such as Trotskyism. FYI I am sure Trotsky would have been even worse dictator than Stalin. Are you aware that he invented "labor battalions"? As you know, Trotsky was very apt organizer of the Red Army. Under Trotsky all country would be one huge militarized labor camp. (Under Stalin it was only in remote areas). Anyway, goodbye here for now. - Altenmann >talk 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Perhaps you are right about Trotsky. One author said that Stalinism was a counter-revolution that crashed the revolution by Lenin. Stalin was followed by Krushchev (next revolution), Brezhnev (counter-revolution), Gorbachev (revolution) and Putin (counter-revolution), i.e. they were waves of violence with only one constant: there was never a rule of law. This is just like Bald–hairy in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Altenmann The argument is not centered on much factual basis or devoid of historical context. One cannot overlook the totality of his political decisions and positions to draw a snap, premature conclusion. Trotsky’s wartime decisions were of course shaped by the intense Civil War, foreign intervention and secessionist movements. A balanced assessment would highlight the fact that he released captured political opponents including former White Army Generals, oppositional party members and had a generally low casualty rate among deserters. Stalin was notorious for his high propensity for violence even during the Civil War via torching villages and disregard for the Tsarist specialists. Trotsky did serve as the Chairman of the Soviet and was conciliatory towards both Menshevik and Bolshevik factions. He also supported intra-party democracy and a multi-party democracy with the other oppositional socialist parties (albeit inconsistently). Factually speaking, Stalin was never intended to be the leader of the Soviet Union as Lenin’s Testament (an authentic document vindicated by most historians) and his recommendation of Trotsky as Vice-Chairman attest. Trotsky’s position as Opposition leader had a defined programme against the troika which further highlight empirically the contrast in their views. His views and positions did shift depending on the context. There are a plentitude first hand sources derived from party platforms, public speeches, along with secondary interpretations from historians as well as political scientists which clearly demonstrate that Trotsky (in relation to the factual record) would not have initiated the Great Purge, forced collectivization which contributed to the Holodomor and rigid suppression of creative or scientific developments. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Nonsense. It appears you didn't comprehend what I was talking about. Here is Trotsky for you:
"The principle of compulsory labor is absolutely beyond dispute for a Communist. “He who does not work, shall not eat.” Since everyone has to eat, everyone has to work. Labor service is inscribed in our constitution and in the Code of Labor. But until now it remained a mere principle. Its application had only a partial and incidental character. But now, when we are face to face with the problem of economic reconstruction, the question of labor service confronts us in its full concreteness. The only proper and practical solution of the economic difficulties is to view the population of the entire country as a reservoir of labor power—almost an inexhaustible source—and to introduce strict order into the registration, mobilization, and utilization of that labor power.
- The introduction of compulsory labor is inconceivable without the use, in one form or another, of the methods of militarization of labor."
- For some reason none of nasty Trotsky's ideas are covered in Wikipedia. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM, let's stop here. - Altenmann >talk 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I would agree. This is a question for @WikiUser4020: who edited a lot page Leon Trotsky. Whilst some of his wartime measures have proved controversial and have been criticised along with his ideological defence of the Red Terror, modern scholarship generally ranks his leadership of the Red Army highly among historical figures and he is credited for his major involvement.... Come on. This is whitewashing. He ordered to forcefully recruit people and shot them like dogs during the Civil War. The page does mention his Permanent revolution. But he also strongly supported the idea of militarized/compulsory labor for the entire countries [1], see Labor army and War communism. Basically, Khmer Rouge tried to implement some ideas of Trotsky [2]; this is an argument supporting what Altenmann said above. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- But main issue is this: Trotsky’s position as Opposition leader had a defined programme against the troika (WikiUser4020). Well, there was no any actual and significant ideological opposition in that Party; all of them were followers of Lenin. This is just the way Stalin painted/discredited his potential political rivals in the party, i.e. "Left opposition" (Trotsky), "New opposition" (Zinoviev), "right opposition" (Bukharin). The "opposition" in the party and elsewhere was Stalin's propaganda to justify his terror. Actually, Stalin implemented some ideas by Trotsky and some by Bukharin, after criticizing them. This is well explained in books by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Altenmann@My very best wishes These are clearly arguments of bad faith. The excerpt cited is from his controversial book “Terrorism and Communism” which is clearly referenced in his Wikipedia biography. In fact, several sub-sections reference multiple historians that make the argument of Stalin-Trotsky continuity. In the article on Trotskyism, there is again an entire subsection which outlines that same argument with a specific reference to policies on war communism and militarization of labor. Far from white washing, all the perspectives are thoroughly documented and presented. These seem like ad hominem attacks rather than credible arguments.
- Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov was a conservative, anti-communist historian as well as co-founder of Radio Liberty hence he would clearly favor the thesis of shared totalitarianism between Trotsky and Stalin. A far more credible source would be Knei-Paz who at least presents a comprehensive overview of Trotsky’s views and the significant differences from the policies implemented by Stalin. Alternatively, a plurality of views presented by various biographers of Trotsky would be a far more balanced perspective rather than citing one source with a strong ideological position.
- On the issue of factional differences. This is simple ignorance there were clear ideological differences in regards to the 1920s factional debates. This included positions on economic policy (industrialization, expanded workers democracy vs NEP), foreign policy (permanent revolution vs socialism in one country), industrial democracy and intra-party democracy. Stalin’s co-option and implementation of the Left Opposition’s policies was strongly criticized by Trotsky due to the total absence of worker participation, democratization in the process and bureaucratic command methods. Several sources demonstrate and I have already cited those sources on those pages that Trotsky did not advocate for forced collectivisation but a voluntary tax-based approach.
- Khmer Rouge was a Marxist-Leninist state like all the existing states which adhered to the Stalinist Soviet model. Trotsky was very much a heretical figure after his exile within the wider Marxist-Leninist movement and his ideas either denounced or banned as in the case of the Soviet Union. The cited source above from a geographer who makes a factual mistake in not recognizing this. All professional historians and observers of Trotsky and Trotskyism note the denunciation of his ideas in Marxist-Leninist states from Vietnam to Albania.
- These discussion have devolved into ideological diatribes rather than factual-based discussions grounded on empirical sources. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It would be funny if was not being deadly sad: there was even "право-левый уклон" (right-left deviation). - Altenmann >talk
|