Genuine question, what is exactly wrong with Trotsky and his ideas?I dont agree with the ones I have read...

How can you say that when you look at the actual history of his struggle with Stalin? Directly after Lenins dead he was in the prime position to be the No.1 guy of the party. He had more prestige than Stalin and his position as Military comissar was more powerful than Stalins position of General Secretary of the Party (which, at that time, was a purely administrative job, not designed to actually shape policy).

But instead of actually making a forceful powerplay, he went and started his feud with Stalin over the issue of preserving party democracy. I think the guy was ruthless when it came to fighting what he perceived as external enemies of the party, but I will say that he genuinly seemed interested in having a party with a broad leadership and open discourse.

This. Literally everyone wanted a collective leadership except Stalin.

also free ukraine

Don't kid yourself. Stalin's position allowed him to line the party with his supporters.

Personally I don't doubt the claims of Trotskyites that he would've been less repressive than Stalin. Where you chumps and the other anti-Stalin Leninist types fall completely flat is in their utter delusion that the Soviet Union was doing perfectly OK before Trotsky's exile/Lenin's death/whatever.

Bureaucratization was a problem right from the start and any arguments that it accelerated under Stalin or he did nothing to prevent it are supported by absolutely nothing. You people who think the CCCP was on the road to democracy when all of Stalin's attempts to limit the central committee's power were blocked are deluding yourselves, there is absolutely nothing Trotsky could've done to make the government significantly more democratic within his lifetime.

marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo Martens/node81.html

Not that it matters anyway. Trotsky's strategy would've inevitably left the Soviet state as a defenseless backwater waiting to be destroyed.

Trotsky did a lot of things that hampered the international communist movement. His playing a part in destroying a bandit autocracy was not one of them.

But Bolsheviks lasted for many decades since Trotsky's expulsion.

I'm not a ML of any kind actually.

Yes, it did and over the years that played out in his favour big time. However, 1923/24 his position was not more powerful than Trotskys, the fact that he needed to team up with Kamenev and Zinoviev to cancel Trotsky out shows that.

I don't even disagree that things weren't all fine and dandy while Lenin was still alive, quite the opposite. And one of the biggest issues were the restrictions on party democracy that were put in place during the Civil War. Those restrictions allowed Stalin in the first place to use his SG position to line up the party with his guys. Heeding Trotskys call to ease the restrictions on party democracy (the biggest one, next to the up to bottom approach in filling party positions, was the ban on factionalism) would have prevented anyone from getting Stalin like unchecked powers. After all, I'm not arguing the "everything would have been fantastic under Trotsky" line here, I'm arguing against the notion that Trotsky was as authoritarian as Stalin.

Why do you think this to be the case? Trotskyists were a minority.

Majority supported mainstream Bolsheviks because it was Bolshevik party in the first place. Even if without Lenin there wasn't a single personality people would unite behind, under no circumstances would majority choose Trotsky.

And a second flaw: Stalin built his initial power base (reputation as a hardline Bolshevik; it was only later that he became "brain of the Party") not as a General Secretary (technically, he was simple Secretary without any additional powers), but as a head of intra-party police and anti-corruption agency (Control Committee and Rabkrin) in 1920-23.

Arguably, those posts held no less power than Trotsky's Military Commissariat.

I.e. while reputation-wise Trotsky was indeed second only to Lenin, he was hardly in position to take control over everything.

I'd like to point out that Stalin always teamed up with people. Even during WWII he was part of collective decision-making process, rather than a separate entity.

That said, I do not argue that Stalin didn't have enough reputation to prevail over Trotsky. Even in 1926 - after his victory - Stalin's popularity was based not on his personal qualities, but on his platform.

I have no bloody idea, thats why I came here to ask

But didn't Trotsky think that the party was on the wrong course before Stalin?

Lenin wasn't totally responsible for Stalin but he was partly.

He was also kind of a hypocrite. He denounced the whole Lenin's Testament shit, and then later on after exile started bringing it up against stalin.

I do think he is a good writer though.

A brilliant writer, lad.

>archive.org/details/QuiteRightMrTrotsky
B-but it is an actual book, there are just a few doodles thrown in. Anyway, thanks for the link.
>Scanned by Ismail.
This guy is everywhere, isn't he. I just started reading it and really like the entertaining writing style (unlike the style of a certain statesman and bunker enthusiast).

A lot of his writing was heavily criticized in all the ways it would cause endless issues. (even by Lenin/Stalin at that time etc)
He had a lot of ideas that were fucking stupid.
Like the permanent revolution.
Experimental shit that would in real life cause endless suffering.

nah

His writing was more popular than lenin and stalin's though, to be fair. Before the revolution the papers he ran were more successful than lenin's.

That said, even trotsky's allies were skeptical of permanent revolution.

Do you mean "Lev Davidovich Bronstein"?
Just say you want to be pawns of the jews, because in the end they are the leaders of your failed ideology.

autism