Tfw we will never live in a world where Trotsky became leader of the USSR instead of Stalin and spearheaded an...

[citation needed]

The revolution is coming comrades, but the russian revolution was an absolute failure. Trotsky couldn't have saved it, but it sure would have produced a more dynamic century.

...

Literally Eraserhead

Was there really a better alternative? Socialism in one country is essentially giving the revolution access to countries-worth of resources, skills, and manpower to spread, as opposed to hoping socialist groups capture the state in every country on their own with loose collaboration with each other.

Besides, capitalism didn't arise in one, spontaneous global revolution either.

has anyone here even read the letter Lenin wrote to the central committee denouncing Stalin? It doesn't promote Trotsky at all and it barely says bad things about Stalin

Tbh Trotsky might not have been able to defeat the nazis

Why?

[anarchists laughing in the distance]

As a military commander he would've probably done well, However he wouldn't have been able to industrialize to the same level as 'ol Joe.
The biggest factor in winning WW2 was logistics and supply.

This, I'm tired of le Trotsky was inexperienced meme. He actually understood military strategy unlike Stalin who was literally an armchair general.

Trotsky had the original plan for industrialisation and collectivising, it just differed from Stalin's copy in that it didn't include exacerbating a famine with unnecessary measures.

It is more likely that the USA/UK etc would have made a deal with Nazi Germany against the USSR partway through the war, however.

Yes, international socialism.

I don't know why I argue with Stalinist. Could you kindly tell me why the Holodomer isn't genocide if Stalin didn't allow Ukranian peasants out of Ukraine?

A few million people hungry enough to die >>>>> the entire population hungry enough to survive but be extremely angry at the government

What?

Failed with the German revolution. Technically failed before the First World War.

I don't think allowing starving people to leave to where food is would really make the entire population angry, or put everyone at a risk of starvation.

Trotsky was pushing for industrialization years before Stalin m8, it's pretty much the main point of his Opposition following Lenin's death.

Have you never read about this? The soviets stole grain from the kulaks to feed the cities.

I knew that. I'm asking why they didn't allow peasants to travel if they weren't intending to Starve them?

So they don't get hordes of angry peasants flooding the cities and rioting?

Are you going to explain your reasoning at all? Every attempt at socialist revolution failed in every country except Russia. What were they supposed to do about that? Turn Russia back over to the Romanovs and hope for better luck next time?

Nice buzzword

Could you kindly explain how it is genocide if Stalin didn't start the famine and was constantly seizing grain from other parts of the country to send to areas most badly affected by it?

Maybe stop trying to undermine socialist movements with ideological differences.

Hardly limited to the comintern, even if they were a particularly bad bunch of ideologues. Asimov said it best, actually (paraphrasing): marxists are bitterly resentful of having to fight the common enemy over each other.

...

Three brilliant things advocated by Trotsky:
1. Organizing rail in a way that every section is responsible for its "own" revenue.
2. Gold Standard.
3. Starting a war with India.

Trotsky was also brilliant at predicting the future: He predicted the end of chewing gum and that a Stalin-led USSR would lose against the Nazis.

Not allowing Trotsky to go to Germany, killing the CNT instead of the fascist, are just some examples of how Stalinist have chosen to undermine socialist movements that didn't expand the ML bureaucracy.

Trots are truly cancerous, jesus crist!

If Lenin lived only 10 more years…

what happens ?

What in the fuck would he have even done differently?

Only the revolution in the West could have saved Russia. A different leader wouldn't have made a difference.

JUST

It probably would've been better than how things turned out tbh
if anything had Stalin been in Charge with Trotsky still around for the beginning of ww2 Europe would've been red
Trotsky would probably still fuck over the CNT though unfortunately

What if the october revolution turned to be a liberal one and the ussr never existed, would that ease the anti communist propaganda holding the america down?

*holding america down

Trotsky basically called anarchism a mental disease

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch21.htm

He lived handsomely in America
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch22.htm

...

wow m8

Yeah nah I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

Haha no

Always with the shitty jpgs

Godammit everytime this happens, it's KALININ not TROTSKY in that picture.

Don't know why Miliband is there but the point still stands.

There are rumours that he was Jewish, actually.

You can't deny the Jewish influence though.

No, nothing stands at all.

Yes we can. Communism is profoundly anti-religious, and the USSR enforced atheism.

Fuck off yourself already with your shitty unsourced Stormfront jpegs for arguments.

The reason Trotsky took the back seat in the first place was because of his military blunders during the civil war, his political and economical policies were deplorable even when Lenin was around, literally nobody on the congress outside his sect agreed with him.

"Goebbels said" is not rumours. It's propaganda.