Would there be any actual difference between a Trotskyist and Stalinist Soviet Union?

Trotsky was more intelligent than Stalin, so he may have averted certain practical mistakes of the Soviet Union, and perhaps, would do better at economy and worse at military, better longterm and worse shortterm.

I claim, however, that he would be the same Bonapartine, imperial ruler as Stalin, and would also employ radical totalitarian policies and purge his opponents. Not because of his character, but because of the very same political environment that existed back then.

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/Gilles Dauvé- The Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.pdf

Trotskyist SU would burn out from constant warfare.

Trotsky would probably have worse geopolitical judgement than Stalin (e.g. he wouldn't greenlight Mol-Rib pact), but he wouldn't do much different in terms of warfare.

Much more agressive foreign policy at least

Say hello to world war 3

At the very minimum I'd get to hear about LOCAL TROTSKYIST PAPER more.

Trotsky was not for overt military intervention, he was actually against the war with Poland. Trotsky was for giving aid to revolutionary groups and for those groups to do the fighting.

What makes you say that?

Because, as Marx postulated, practice alone is the criterion of the truth.

Stalin thought, despite the fact that he had a superstate at his disposal for 20 years, died as soon as he died.

Trotsky's works are still debated and taken into consideration in the modern world. Trotskyists manage to get some political power here and there. Not Stalinists.

But Stalin did that anyway.

He was against that just because stalin did it

Not the way Trotsky planned for example Stalin never gave heavy weaponry to the peasant terrorist groups in Japan like Trotsky wanted to do.

You can't be serious. Castro and Che, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh, etc, were all "Stalinists" (even after Stalin's death). Trots have never had any significant amount of political power and that's not a coincidence. They're completely useless, have always been useless and will always be useless.

t. Trotsky
No, it would have been the exact same. There was never supposed to be democracy in the USSR and there never was. All Leninists (except for possibly Bordigists) are the same.

Paid homage to the USSR, didn't mind one bit when USSR denounced Stalin.
There are Trotskyist ministers, deputies and academia. Not around 1950s, but today.

You mean, that all Leninists are not oblivious to the global laws of development of society and politics, and thus stay relevant and in control and are able to formulate and pursue realistic aims, unlike naive , idealistic and useless anarchists?

Not true btw. Che was a hardcore Stalinist. Google the things he said about Stalin. I'm on my phone so can't be bothered to copy paste a bunch of quotes but he really admired Stalin and was an early "anti-revisionist" or whatever you wanna call it.

Mao at least liked Stalin way better than he liked Khrushchev, and the chinese communists accused the USSR of revisionism and capitalist restoration after Stalin died.

But the more important point is that it's understandable that the weaker socialist countries didn't completely denounce Soviet revisionism considering how dependent on the USSR they were.

lmao

Its not fair to compare the achievements of trots against the achievements of stalinists, when Trotsky only had his plume and Stalin had a huge country.
Still, gotta accept that Stalin played Trotsky like a flute

He only gave support to already large and successful revolutionary groups and never to the extent that Trotsky wanted.

The ultimate proof that modern Stalinists are just Soviet cosplayers. At least Trotskyists are real communists.

I don't even like Kim il-sung or DPRK and I wouldn't consider myself a Stalinist. I'm just pointing out that these "Stalinists" (ML's) have had political power at different times in different places while trots have never had any power and have never achieved anything at all.

Achieved alot:
Achieved alot
Achieved a tiny bit
I also don't even a Trot.

Nigga what are you doing. Stalin was literally the guy who made ML a thing. Anyone who could reasonably be called a Stalinist would identity as a ML. "Stalinist" is just a derogatory way of saying Marxist-Leninist. And Maoism could probably be considered a subcategory, or a development of Marxism-Leninism aka Stalinism.

Trotsky, Mao and Stalin all considered their respective works to be the extension of Marxism-Leninism. (And Kim Ilsung considers Marx to be the extension of his work)

Your declare Stalin to be the true and only heir of Lenin simply because of your own appreciation of Stalin, and not any factual evidence.

Lenin massively revised Marx to the point that any real connection is doubtful. His didactic vanguardism was staunchly contradicted by Marx's letter to Arnold Ruge, where he claimed that the proletariat had to emancipate itself and that it contained the kernel of communism within its condition as the proletariat. Only left communists such as Pannekoek, DeBord, and Dauve have faithfully carried on Marx's original project. Leninism is pure utopianism - socialism is a state of affairs to be established by an all-knowing vanguard for it. As to your second point, Marx acknowledged Proudhon and subsequent anarchists as scientific socialists in their own right.

But that's wrong you fucking retard. Trotsky called himself a Bolshevik-Leninist or something like that after Lenin's death, and before that they all called themselves simply Marxists or Bolsheviks. Big-M-Marxism-hyphen-big-L-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, ML, was a term coined by Stalin after Lenin's death, and that's why ML's are often called Stalinists. There are non-ML Leninists.

Mao may have considered his writings an extension of ML but he already recognized Stalin as one of the main contributors to ML theory.

Really? There's no real connection between Lenin and Marx? I suspect you've only read Marx and no Lenin, Lenin and no Marx, or you haven't read either of them.

Trotsy's ideas did nothing of any importance. His only significance was as a not-Stalin Bolshevik for the anti-Stalinists to rally around whilst they failed to do anything.

That's just massively exaggerated.

Do you realize Trotsky founded the red army and was a much better military leader?

Fun fact: the first usage of Marxism-Leninism can be attributed to Octavio Brandão in what is the first marxist interpretation of Brazil called: Agrarismo e Industrialismo. His work, while pioneer, is largely said to be mediocre at best. Still, he coined Marxism-Leninism a couple of years before Stalin, of course Brandão's work is pretty obscure outside of Brazil so for all intents the ML is Stalin's child.

I've read both… and I've also read Dauve.
libcom.org/files/Gilles Dauvé- The Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.pdf

Read more
Here's Marx:
Contrast this to Lenin:
A) Lenin plain

I should also clarify my earlier point by noting that Lenin promised Soviet democracy and went back on this the first chance he got.

This question refers to spooks, so I won't satisfy your unpragmatical fetish :3 Instead I answer the historical-material question is why Stalin didn't recede although he offered it.

Not the revolutionary peasants were crucial for this purpose, but the Central Committee which Stalin influenced stronger than Trotki. In contrast to Stalin, who was naiv and greedy for power, Trotzki elaborated on theory on communism and knew that bureaucracy corrupts in totalitarism and thereby relinquishes human's freedom since bureaucracy is always a bit of a unnecessary authority. (BTW: This reminds me of Kafka.) This is why Trotzki also criticized nationalism (alias Stalin's "socialism in one country) and party structure of the CPSU. For this special reason, members of the Central Committee feared for their own mandates. In this time, Stalin already empowered himself to be first general secretary which made after Lenin's death Trotzki's discrediting and diffamation easy mode. The systemic repression of Lenin's testament where Stalin was described as "too rude and […] defect" to replace Lenin and praised Trotzki is just another clue for this.

those quotes don't even have anything to do with each other. stupid smashie.