what if trotsky had won leadership

Post Reply New Topic

trotsky would have countined the theroy of Permanent Revolution and disbaned the N.E.P

all thoght i think he would start a war with the capitalist countrys

One more thread and I'll shoot you with my raw rage and for the love of Logic no more 1337 speak!

One more thread and I'll stab him in the head with an ice pick

He would have changed his name back to Bronstein

Because he was less ruthless, the Nazi's would have won in the Eastern Front 1942 and he would have been deported with other Jews.

Either that or TDBrown just got him with an icepick.

Things like this are very hard to say. My guess is he would have been brutal (remember that one reason Stalin ended up in charge was because Trotsky was regarded as the dangerous one, but considering that Stalin is the second biggest mass murderer in history I suppose it's a stretch to expect Trotsky actually would have killed more or even anywhere same amount. In fact I kinda wonder how long Trotsky would have lasted. He wasn't hugely popular with the politburo.

Less likely to make mind-boggling stupid mistakes before Hitler makes war, but since the people are less likely to worship him and since he's more of a political bungler the Nazi's are more likely to win.

All and all, a moot point.

I'll put it this way. I've read that before Stalin got into power, the communists were trying to spread communism into Poland, which failed miserably. Yes I agree I think Trotsky was brutal just like Joey. You have to remember that the Bolshivic party was founded on raticalism and not so much on humanity. Who else do you think ordered the murder of the Czar and his family, well Lenin of course!

My guess is that if Trotsky were to get into power he would try to spread communism right away, but as ruthless as Stalin was, he wasn't ready to spread it yet, he needed to industrialize the country first. He waited until the right time to do it, by the time WW2 hit, despite the fact that so many Soviets lost their lives, the equipment was better by that time and then that's when they decided to spread it, perfect timing I think.

Thats just what I think.

Would've been like a second Lenin as Party Secretary - red terror/KGB and elimination of all anti-Bolskevik elements. Red terror wouldn't have been escalated to paranoid heights as it was under Stalin/no Hitler appeasement.

Would've been less Nazi advance into Soviet Russia as fewer people would welcome the Nazis as an alternative to the current leader.

Well remove national socialism and replace it with permanent revolution under such a principled follower of Marxism and many things may have happened, the 1926 general strike in Britain would not have been betrayed by the stalinists and the proletariat may have taken control, the Chinese Communist Party would not have been ordered to join the Kuomintang which started the destruction of the ccp and eventually led to the dictatorship of Mao Zedong, the massive industrial upheavals during the mid 1930's in the US would have had support rather than betrayal, Germany may have gone down the socialist route, WW2 would not have happened ........ Who knows the damage done to society by the actions of Stalin, but I suspect we would be living in a very different world had Trotsky prevailed.

His The Revolution Betrayed outlines fairly closely what he'd have done.

Revert back to some pre-communistic modes of production, meaning reintroduce a partial free market. Use authoritarian political power to retain political obedience of the masses. In essence, what was already happening under Lenin and what Stalin then did.

They obviously differ in foreign policy. Trotsky puts massive effort into fermenting revolution in western and eastern Europe. Most likely, this enhances the power and number communist revolutionaries, conceivably some successful revolutions, but certainly not the mass European wide revolution Trotsky desires. With the communist threat even more visible, Hitler comes to power far sooner (or maybe someone equally far right, possibly in France instead).

Eventually, a successful revolution occurs or hangs in the balance, probably somewhere in Eastern Europe. Hitler (or whoever takes his place) intervenes militarily to halt the spread of Communism, forcing Trotsky also to intervene militarily to save the revolution. This causes a local war within this third country.

Crucially, whoever wins that war Hitler is still in power. Providing he has not already upset the Western powers by following the policy he enacted from 1938 onwards (which is likely as halting communist revolutions are far more likely to be his policy direction than Austria or Czechoslovakia) then he becomes the golden boy of western Europe, the defender of Europe against communism. World war two simply doesn't happen, beyond probably more conflict between Nazi Germany and Russia.

I guess people would be trying to be 'hip' wearing Stalinist gear... Maybe Israel would have had more support (actually, USSR recognized Israel before the US did...ain't that ironic?...

Brezhnev, Khruschev, etc., would probably not gone very far, siding with the 'wrong' side. No one to pound their shoe in the UN to get attention...

Actually Stalin got caught with his pants down in Operation Barbarossa...if Trotsky was in, they might have mobilized sooner.

Then again, being put in power does tend to change one's viewpoint; to have a permanent revolution, Trotsky would eventually have to attack himself...

ths is an old old question that comes out of the right directed to trotskyists - the answer is history is open, it is contingent. that said from Trotsky's own works and his actions in the civil war (he was more popular than Stalin amongst the workers - stalin was just some incompetent commissar in the civil war, the problem was Stalin won the support of the middle cadres/bureaucrats who were appointed by stalin as general secretary and who were increasingly the dominant group/caste after the failure of the german revolution - who also acted on the advice of stalinists in the comintern - they have a hell of a lot to answer for given that a successful revolution in germany would very likely mean no nazis, no hitler) then what DentArthurDent says pretty much hit's it on the head.


bazzamckenzie, jimservo, mamc1986 - I mean no disrespect but it seems you're commenting on something you know nothing of.

and permanent revolution doesn't mean endless revolution it means to go from bourgeois revolution to proletarian revolution with little gap in between (permanent here means uninterrupted) - in the case of russia the Bolsheviks had their hand forced in many respects as, along with kerensky supporting the Kornilov putsch amongst other charges that can be brought, the provisional government had entered into a series of policies which were preparing a famine, the price of grain was raised by them when there already was a shortage and poverty gripped the populace so that the big farmers and agricultural capitalists could make more money. Course there was grain around at the time just the latter two groups mentioned had stored it on their estates - when the peasants kicked off the revolution ( - the Tambov gubernia revolt in september 1917.) the landowners high tailed it for the nearest railway station where they literally swamped the rail junctions in a panicked atempt to sell their stocks before running for the nearest safe haven.

TitusLucretiusCarus and DentArthurDent, would agree that the communists having any greater level of success in Germany post 1920s would have resulted in a Civil War? The Sparticists might have stood a chance, Bavarian Republic probably none (both pre Stalin Trotsky divide so not relevant) and then no real opportunities under the stability Stresemann. After the Wall Street Crash the communists certainly had an opportunities but the opposition had changed. The Freikorps were large but didn’t have a vast political force, represented by the moderately successful Steel Helmets and other more fringe parties. 1930s onwards, the main enemy would be the SA, who had vast political power by being the arm of the Nazi party. Were there a sufficient sized communist revolution that threatened to consume the entire country, I suspect the Nazis would aim for a civil war and would have the necessary political support, both from the government and the local populace.

Crucially, should civil war occur and the country hang in the balance, I strongly suspect military intervention in favour of the right from at least some of the western powers. By contrast, without invading Poland, Trotsky could only provide minimal military support. (If Trotsky does invade Poland to support German revolution like in 1919, 1930s Europe would utterly freak)

Providing support to revolutionaries is one thing but given that most of the European middle and upper classes were utterly terrified of communism, incredibly strict measured would be taken to put down any revolution that occurs. With its relative geographic isolation, Communist Russia would always have limitations to intervene once the revolution is underway. Trotsky might have caused more attempted revolutions but few successful ones, largely resulting in scaring Europe into becoming even more right wing even sooner.

Well, that’s my thoughts anyway.

Most likely Trotsky would not have purged the armed forces, as did the beast, Josef Stalin.

ruveyn

that depends a lot on the balance of forces, and you've named at least three distinct historical periods with very different conditions and very different subjective factors - in 1918/19 the German workers had won when they threw out the kaiser, they were the class who held state power. This is where the subjective factor comes in and the importance of a revolutionary party, the german SDP and other left groups didn't realise what they had, the communsits did and were making a big old noise about it - that is that they had won and need only secure the workers government against any counter-revolution [that includes the use of secret police and revolutionary terror, which I would support] - the SDP and others decided to vote on a call for a constituent assembly, the communists abstained (on the advice of Zinoviev in the comintern, who was an 'economicist' and had been opposed to taking power in Russia), the dark irony being that if the communists had taken part and agitated and voted against the convocation it probably wouldn't have gone ahead; had they actually done what they were there for and lead the german workers as the revolutionary party in january the workers wouldn't have been put down (with a lot of blood shed, including not a few people who were neither armed nor participating)- and history would have taken a much different course. Yes their probably would have been a counter-revolution and civil war but one which the german workers would definitely have had the strength to win and quickly. After that the KPD had lost it's best leaders of an entire generation in Luxemburg and Liebknecht and without proper leadership you're not going anywhere. There may have been an attempt at intervention but only if they could avoid a revolution in their own back yard - there would have been no way at all that French or British troops could have made any meaningful impact in a German civil war if their armed forces were divided by revolution at home, and would have been nigh on impossible with an alliance of the Soviets in central and eastern europe (Hungary included, poland I'll look at in a minute). The period after that which you mention was one of deep counter reaction, the german workers had taken a massive blow in 1919 with many if not all of the best elements being executed on the spot by the german government.

first of all if you are saying that the soviets were the aggressors in the soviet-polish war then that is utterly false. The government headed by Pilsudski ordered the Polish army to invade the Ukraine SFSR, with the aim of installing Petlyura as head of government there with Pilsudksi's whole 'Miedzymorze' thing in mind. The Red Army, rightly, aimed to break the back of the Polish army and bring the Poles to the table to discuss a peace treaty, which they offered to the Poles in july of 1920. by august Tuchachevsky was ready to take Warsaw but Stalin, idiot that he was, aimed for a little personal glory and got Budyonny to direct his cavalry against Lvov rather than holding the line protecting Tuchachevsky's position in the south; all the while the army group in the north sent to swing south to flank and surround Warsaw ignored Tuchachevsky's orders and continued north-west and were eventually detained in german prussia.

But, again at best that's a vague hypothetical if not a false one. The 1930's were characterised by deep reaction and violence against the workers or workers movements - there was no leadership for the workers in 30's germany even if they were in a position to challenge the state and bourgeoisie, which they weren't. There was no revolution in the 30's because the German revolution took place in 1918/1919 and was defeated - with responsibility for that defeat falling in no small part at the feet of Stalin and Zinoviev in the comintern and with the failures of the KPD. Radek tried a revolution in 1923 but had entered onto a false theory and the hammer was promptly dropped on them.



well you've just outlined why revolutions are mostly heavlily armed and extremely violent and why the founding of the Cheka and the use of the Red Terror etc were the correct courses of action in defeating the forces of the reaction - to paraphrase Marx: 'no class gives up its interests without a bloody struggle' (I also like to quote this one every now and then: 'Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity' - which tickles me.) Other than that I can't comment on a hypothetical situation without knowing the objective conditions thereof.

So many potential futures that have been cancelled or erased by such events... <.<

not cancelled I'd say, just held in abeyance...