what if trotsky had won leadership

Post Reply New Topic

Firstly: shame on the three-year necro.

Anyways, had Trotsky won over Stalin things would obviously have turned out much differently. Trotsky was the leader of the Red Army during the early years of the Soviet Union, and a military genius, so I would have expected a much more active use of Soviet military power (and a much stronger Soviet military) had the power struggle gone Trotsky's way. Unlike Stalin, who affirmed the idea of "Socialism in one country," Trotsky very firmly believed in the principle of worldwide (or at least Europe-wide) socialist revolution. It is likely that Trotsky may have given more support to German socialist revolutionaries, and if an industrialized nation like Germany went Socialist that could have been a big enough domino to make Marxism the dominant ideology throughout Europe. I also tend to think Trotsky would have been somewhat less of a brutal dictator than Stalin was. Trotsky was Lenin's preferred successor, so we can guess that he would have done a better job of continuing Lenin's legacy.

I doubt it, there certainly would have been some fighting but not a full scale civil war, the issue with Germany was a lack of an experienced revolutionary party, the SPD took control and did everything it could to prevent a full scale revolution, this party by its own admission was a reformist and not a revolutionary one, who deliberately and purposefully prevented large scale insurrection and gave tacit approval for the murder of Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. As Titus has already aptly demonstrated the events post the October revolution require some study to understand the intricate nature of what happened

to quote the Trotsky regarding the failure of 'war communism' to gradually morph into true communism

"This theoretical mistake of the ruling party remains inexplicable, however, only if you leave out of account the fact that all calculations at that time were based on the expectations of an early victory of the revolution in the West. It was considered self evident that the victorious German proletariat would supply Soviet Russia, on credit against future food and raw materials, not only with machines and articles of manufacture, but also with tens of thousands of highly skilled workers, technicians and organisers. And there is no doubt that if the proletarian revolution had triumphed in Germany -and its victory was prevented solely and exclusively by the Social Democrats - the economic development of the Soviet Union as well as of Germany would have advanced with such gigantic strides that the fate of Europe and the world would today have been incomparably more auspicious''

He also writes "if in 1918 the Social democrats of Germany had employed the power imposed upon them by the workers for a socialist revolution and not for the rescue of capitalism ....."

My knowledge of Marxism is exceedingly vague and highly second hand so I probably am off base on my suppositions but my impression was that Marx thought that communism would result from the progress of capitalism to the point that its inefficiencies and cruelties would cause it to collapse more or less automatically. This would require that capitalism had to reach a highly developed industrial state before its internal inconsistencies caused its automatic destruction. Russia at the time of the revolution in 1917 was hardly a developed industrial state so the whole theory never came close to being fulfilled. The USA today seems more in a position for the collapse of capitalism but the populace is so rigidly brainwashed against a control of the industrial and financial forces that are destroying its health, education, information sources, ecology, military-industrial complex, etc that these forces have insured their existence to the point that the Marxist automatic revolution against social suicide is entirely suppressed. Nevertheless, as the problems of society proliferate and intensify inexorably under the present system there will come a breaking point and it seems to be approaching at a rapid rate. What will happen when that occurs I have no idea.

That is correct. By Marxist theory, the Bolshevik Revolution should never have happened and its leaders knew it. They were impatient, though, and they made up new theories about how Russia's economic backwardness wouldn't matter because their revolution would only be a temporary arrangement until the German Proletariat also rebelled and created a larger communist society that Russia could join.

You are pretty much on the mark with your assessment, the argument rages to this day as to whether or not the the Bolsheviks jumped the gun. However Capitalism did have a major crisis in 1914 the result being WW1. One of the main reasons for the failure of the Russian revolution was the large proportion of the Russian population were not proletariat but instead peasantry and the country as a whole had a very underdeveloped industry, the quote I posted by Trotsky sums it up very well, they were relying upon the success of the German working class, who in contrast were highly advanced.

I do wonder if Marx in his predictions did not take fully into account the forces of social democracts and their ability to stave of revolution.

As to the USA yes this country is in a dire state, but Marx not only describes the need for a capitalist crisis but also of the need for a politically advanced proletariat. Presently the level of political consciousness in the US is pitiful. As the situation for the working class in the USA worsens this lack of consciousness could change dramatically

capitalism doesn't automatically destroy itself, it has to be destroyed by a revolution - if not then it leads to 'the common ruin of all the classes'. One metaphor I've known to be used is that of a vampire - it'll go on and on, and the older it gets the more blood it needs to suck to sustain itself, it won't die until it is either killed with a driven stake (a revolution) or it has destroyed every means of its sustenance leading to its own death (such as, say, ecological catastrophe). The US has been ready for revolution for many decades, between the highly effective propaganda and the persecution of the pre WW2 era to the McCarthyite witch hunts the capitalists have successfully staved of the threat.



If that were necessarily the case Marx would never have supported the Paris commune of 1848. The theory of Permanent Revolution has stood the test of time and is firmly grounded in dialectical materialism and on the evidence of history - it was the vulgar economicism of the Stalinists, always assessing what was and what wasn't 'ready' to go from capitalism to socialism, that set back every revolution from China in the 20's (when the stalinists insisted they participate in the Kuomintang only to be exterminated), through Bolivia during Guevara's failed effort (the utter lack of support from the Bolivian Communist Party had a mjaor effect on his campaign), to the Iranian revolution (where, because they said Iran wasn't ready for socialist revolution, they took a back seat with their 'stagism' and were promptly executed).

It's quite evident that the capitalist system has, in recent times been sustained by keeping the population in a state of subjugation through debt and this has become nakedly apparent through the machinations of mortgages and credit cards wherein through the arbitrary powers of the financial institutions the rates are raised for whatever usurious fantasies the institutions can dream up and the public has been held powerless to contain this idiotic greed to the point that it is no longer sustainable by the system and the whole brittle structure collapses. The weird thing is that those in power do not seem to accept that when wages are not commensurate with rising debt the market place dissolves into thin air and their eagerness to export labor to areas of low salaries drains off market capabilities. Markets and wages are a closed system and when it opens, it disintegrates. I am not an economist but this is so obvious I cannot understand how it is not apparent to the intellects who are in control.

We need not worry about the American Proles. Give them junk t.v., fast food, cheap beer and something to schtupp and they are happy Proles.

ruveyn

And let them die of cancer and swine flu unattended. Unfortunately, swine flu is contagious.

All the more reason to require vaccination against fatal and contagious diseases. Everyone should get a shot, even at public expense. It is the same sort of thing as national defense. The service does not scale down to individual market choices. It must be rendered to all to be of any effect.

I favor free vaccinations for contagious diseases even at public expense to provide for the indigent. I don't want to die from some filth spread by the Proles, nor do I wish to see my children and grand children in danger.

However, since starvation is not contagious I am not in favor of feeding the Proles. If they starve, they starve.

ruveyn

^^ how's about that for an example of class consciousness

For somebody who presumes himself monstrously intelligent it is amusing to think you can ignore that starving people are extremely likely to be a very dangerous contingent of civil unrest which would not only make a very dangerous world for your precious grandchildren but that their immune systems would surely make them vulnerable to all sorts of contagious diseases to whack out your grandchildren along with a large contingent of society. The best way to protect your grandchildren is to be sure they will survive in a healthy happy and productive world. Nastiness bites back.

Arm the police with shotguns and machine guns (preferably 50 caliber). That solves the problem of mass uprisings.

ruveyn

you already have the army for that (domestic control being the primary purpose of the army, foreign defence/offence being secondary)

Sure. It might even work as well as it does in Afghanistan. There are lots of so-called "prols" with guns and army training and a rather strong distaste for the police. If that's the kind of world you would like to see for your grandchildren. It's a lot easier, cheaper, and nicer and more effective to give desperate poor people food and shelter.

Think of the Hungarian Uprising put down firmly by Soviet machine guns and tanks. It works like a charm.

In the U.S. uprisings will happen in cities and there will be mobs of people to be gunned down in mass. Relatively unarmed people do not have a chance against heavy caliber weapons. Think of what the Chinese government did in Tsenamen Square. That is the model.

In Afghanistan there is maneuvering in the open and ambush in the mountains. That is not an uprising. It is an insurgent war. The cure for that is poison gas and carpet bombing or even worse.

ruveyn