• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Trotsky Succeeds Lenin, How Does The World Change?


General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,743
As it says on the tin.
A lot of Marxists well the Trots always claim Stallinism was the ruination of communism! And claim that because Stallinists dominated virtually all communist run countries, communism was never really tried.
Also they bemoan the fact that communism emerged as the dominant political force in what was the most backward area it could have emerged in, unlike say Germany where it nearly took off!
In taking Trotsky as the successor of Lenin, let us suppose Stallin was taken out of the picture in some way or other!
Would I be right in thinking Trots appear more anarchic, even nihilistic than Stallinists!
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
Stalin was a brutal, paranoid, megalomaniac. It's not unrealistic to argue that millions of Soviet citizens might have been spared had he not achieved the role of General Secretary.

Would Trotsky have been as unprincipled? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave Hitler the freedom to wage war on two fronts. Would WWII even have occurred had Trotsky been Soviet leader? We'll never know....
 

ocianain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
2,299
Communism coming to Russia was actually a refutation of communism. As you point out, Russia was a back water, capitalism was little developed. Communism was supposed to come about in reaction to the excesses of capitalism....it was supposed to happen in England or Germany....not Russia. Popper addresses this in his, Poverty of Historicism. They're all losers, doesn't matter who was in charge
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
50,016
Trotskyism and Leninism: two cheeks of the same arse. Stalinism is the arsehole.
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
Communism coming to Russia was actually a refutation of communism. As you point out, Russia was a back water, capitalism was little developed. Communism was supposed to come about in reaction to the excesses of capitalism....it was supposed to happen in England or Germany....not Russia. Popper addresses this in his, Poverty of Historicism. They're all losers, doesn't matter who was in charge
The trouble with Marx is that he didn't factor in the ability of capitalists to outsource far beyond national boundaries. The world is a big place and it would have been hard for someone in the mid-19th century to imagine a time when much of Europe's manufacturing potential was being done in India and China.
 

ocianain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
2,299
The trouble with Marx is that he didn't factor in the ability of capitalists to outsource far beyond national boundaries. The world is a big place and it would have been hard for someone in the mid-19th century to imagine a time when much of Europe's manufacturing potential was being done in India and China.
Pardon? That was The Empire wasn't it? Continued immunization of Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist theory indicates it has been falsified. Marx contended he identified the mover behind history and he could therefore predict its course...he was wrong. The revolution did not occur in Great Britain, where it should of with the starving of the Irish, using Welsh children as miners, and the factory conditions within England itself, it occurred in a society still stuck in feudalism. Leninism attempted to rationalize away this obvious falsification of the theory by say, "Since the revolution is a historical inevitability it does not matter where it starts" but of course it does.
 
Last edited:

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
Trotsky was a cynical little twerp who hated his harmless middle class parents. That explains why he still has a following among, you guessed it, cynical little twerps who hate their harmless middle class parents. He would have been a disaster as the dictator he aspired to be but then again he would have been hard pressed to put up a higher body count than Stalin. Either way 'The Revolution' was fu*ked the minute the Bolsheviks seized power.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,101
Considering that Trotsky was the driving force behind the New Economic Policy and all its attendant ills I doubt it would have been any better – most likely worse.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,214
As it says on the tin.
A lot of Marxists well the Trots always claim Stallinism was the ruination of communism! And claim that because Stallinists dominated virtually all communist run countries, communism was never really tried.
Also they bemoan the fact that communism emerged as the dominant political force in what was the most backward area it could have emerged in, unlike say Germany where it nearly took off!
In taking Trotsky as the successor of Lenin, let us suppose Stallin was taken out of the picture in some way or other!
Would I be right in thinking Trots appear more anarchic, even nihilistic than Stallinists!
Simple, the nazi's would have defeated the Soviet Union.

We would all be dead.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,402
I love what-if history:

Without the Great October Socialist Revolution, eastern Europe and Russia would now be a territory of the Third Reich and old fuhrer Hitler or his successor would be attending the G8 summit.

Without General-Secretary Stalin, Russia would not have achieved the transformation from priest-ridden, feudal squalor to industrial giant, with equality for women, universal health care, education etc etc in a quarter century.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,179
You have to love these 'what if' threads for brining out all the wierd and wonderful one-liners from hacks who have little knowledge of what theya re talking about.

If anyone wants to actually engage in a debate I will reply constructively.
 

Goa Tse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
2,280
Maybe another way to look at it would be to ask what if - and this is pure speculation- Lenin hadn't been incapacitated by a stroke when he had. Lenin was basically retired by 1922 and died in 1924.

Stalin might not have been able to consolidate power for himself in the early to mid 1920's if Lenin had still been around.

I repeat, this is pure speculation.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,800
Probably the Nazi soviet pact would not have happened.

The Nazis hated "Jewish bolshevism" as they called it.

Stalin was actually admired by Hitler. I recall I read somewhere that Hilter got his racial experts to examine photos of Stalin to decide if he was Jewish. It was decided Stalin was a non Jew and so the Nazi Soviet pact went ahead.
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org

theObserver@hotmail.com

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
2,424
As it says on the tin.
A lot of Marxists well the Trots always claim Stallinism was the ruination of communism! And claim that because Stallinists dominated virtually all communist run countries, communism was never really tried.
Also they bemoan the fact that communism emerged as the dominant political force in what was the most backward area it could have emerged in, unlike say Germany where it nearly took off!
In taking Trotsky as the successor of Lenin, let us suppose Stallin was taken out of the picture in some way or other!
Would I be right in thinking Trots appear more anarchic, even nihilistic than Stallinists!
Apologists will claim the Russian disaster was not 'true communism'; that Russia was war weary from fighting the imperial war of 1914, that it was torn apart by civil war and had suffered invasion from foreign powers, that the actions the regime took were necessary for it's survival. Besides, Communism is the redistribution of wealth, not the creation of wealth; Marx believed capitalism was a necessary precondition to communism. etc etc

This does not explain the sheer scale of the terror deliberately unleashed inward against the Russian people using techniques which did not exist in monarchical Russia. The terror was unleashed in an effort to reforge Russian society into a communist utopia, to a society which has never existed and never can exist. This was entirely in keeping to communist theory and practice. The terror flowed from communist theory.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,214
No, would be living in a far better and brighter future today.
I have news for you.

You would not.

Visit Auschwitz and you will get a hint of what I mean.

Here is the address.

Address: Więźniów Oświęcimia 20, 32-603 Oswiecim, Poland
Hours:
Monday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Tuesday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Wednesday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Thursday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Friday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Saturday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Sunday Closed

Phone: +48 33 844 81 00

Go and learn.
 
S

simeongrimes

If Stalin had died I don't believe Trotsky would have succeeded Lenin anyway. The other leaders would still have united against him and picked someone else. So the real question is how that person be it Zinoviev, Kamenev or someone else would have acted
 
Top