Trotsky

[ComradeTrotsky]

Here are some articles by Trotsky that some people, those who dont know much about might find intresting.

How did Stalin defeat the Opposition
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-sta.htm

The Last Warning: the Lessons of Spain
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-spain01.htm

In Defence of October
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1932/1932-oct.htm

Stalinism and Bolshevism
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-sta.htm

Transtitional Program
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/index.htm

These are just a few articles by Trotsky, by no means does this sum him up but starts you off with alittle understanding of him.

[flyby]

while we are posting:

Here is an excellent work for getting an overview on the history and nature of trotskyism -- and why it represents an approach and a method and a line that cannot lead to revolution or socialism:

ON TROTSKYISM --Problems of theory and history
by Kostas Mavrakis

ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Other/OT73NB.html

[Deleted]

Since we are linkin' it up, here's another perspective by Paul Mattick:

Bolshevism and Stalinism: (good as a response to Trotsky's "Stalinism and Bolshevism")

The Lenin Legend

[ComradeTrot]

flyby,

could you summarize the main points to your link

SonOfRage,

Im not very well versed with Council Communists but there are quite a few problems with Bolshevism and Stalinism.

"In fact, as long as Lenin was active, Stalin was no trouble to him, however troublesome he may have been to ‘The Number Two Bolshevik’"

This is far from the truth.

Three short letters, dictated on March 5 and 6, 1923, were elements of Lenins plan to purge Stalin at the forthcoming party congress. The first, dated March 5, enlisted Trotskys support for an attack in the party Central Committee's pre congress preliminary meeting on Stalin's handling of the Georgian affair, and the letter of March 6 to Mdivani and Makharadze was a promise to Stalins Bolshevik opponents in Georgia to rally to their side in their dispute with him. But Lenin's incapacitation as his health worsened on March 6 and 10 decesivily altered the course of events, and Stalin weathered the Twelfth Congress discussion of the Georgian affair without great difficulty in part because Trotskys willingness to make a compromise with him over the issue.
Lenins curt note of March 5 to Stalin demanding an apology for his rudeness to Krupskaya was evidently designed to elicit from Stalin an admission of his rudeness, the chrage made against him in the postscript to the "Letter to the Congress." It may therefore be seen as a deliberate effort on Lenins part to document the case he was planning to make for Stalins removal from the General Secretaryship.

The last letter to Stalin can be found at MIA in the Lenin Archive, its the last thinng he wrote so it shouldnt be hard to find.

[flyby]

CT wrote: "could you summarize the main points to your link?"

No. I think you should take the time to read a revolutionary and communist criticism of trotskyism. I can't spoon feed you. And your repeated remarks about not having the time to actually read the ideas you are critiquing -- well, it won't do.

lol

[Deleted]

Guest-ComradeTrot said:

SonOfRage,

Im not very well versed with Council Communists but there are quite a few problems with Bolshevism and Stalinism.

"In fact, as long as Lenin was active, Stalin was no trouble to him, however troublesome he may have been to ‘The Number Two Bolshevik’"

This is far from the truth.

Three short letters, dictated on March 5 and 6, 1923, were elements of Lenins plan to purge Stalin at the forthcoming party congress. The first, dated March 5, enlisted Trotskys support for an attack in the party Central Committee's pre congress preliminary meeting on Stalin's handling of the Georgian affair, and the letter of March 6 to Mdivani and Makharadze was a promise to Stalins Bolshevik opponents in Georgia to rally to their side in their dispute with him. But Lenin's incapacitation as his health worsened on March 6 and 10 decesivily altered the course of events, and Stalin weathered the Twelfth Congress discussion of the Georgian affair without great difficulty in part because Trotskys willingness to make a compromise with him over the issue.
Lenins curt note of March 5 to Stalin demanding an apology for his rudeness to Krupskaya was evidently designed to elicit from Stalin an admission of his rudeness, the chrage made against him in the postscript to the "Letter to the Congress." It may therefore be seen as a deliberate effort on Lenins part to document the case he was planning to make for Stalins removal from the General Secretaryship.

The last letter to Stalin can be found at MIA in the Lenin Archive, its the last thinng he wrote so it shouldnt be hard to find.

The one sentence you chose out of context doesn't indicate "quite a few problems." You've stripped out the main point of that paragraph. Here's the complete paragraph:

There could not have been any ‘theoretic’ differences between Lenin and Stalin, as the only theoretical work bearing the name of the latter had been inspired and supervised by Lenin. And if Stalin’s ‘nature craved’ the centralised party machine, it was Lenin who constructed the perfect machine for him, so that on that score, too, no differences could arise. In fact, as long as Lenin was active, Stalin was no trouble to him, however troublesome he may have been to ‘The Number Two Bolshevik’.

[iskra]

The one sentence you chose out of context doesn't indicate "quite a few problems." You've stripped out the main point of that paragraph.

Good point. We all need to pay special attention to avoiding this kind of lazy and dishonest method (in ALL discussions), myself included.

[RandomCommunist]

www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy.html

Rather intresting in opinion.

Any thoughts?

[Joe]

Quite good piece Randon Communist.

I read the orginal article it answers and one really has to wonder why it could ever be written. It's just the typical slanders and lies without backing. I think Alan Woods refuted it quite nicely.

[XiaoDi]

son of rage wrote: Since we are linkin' it up, here's another perspective by Paul Mattick: Bolshevism and Stalinism: (good as a response to Trotsky's "Stalinism and Bolshevism")

Mattick's article is just as bad as the last time SoR posted it. Here's the link to my response to it, which was in the Takeover the CPUSA thread:

awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=practice&action=display&thread=1089908153

[RandomCommunist]

Nicely done indeed Joe.

I dont always agree with Woods and Grant and modern day issues but they do know their history quite well.

[RandomCommunist]

Part 2 to the above article

www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy_part_2.html

Just as good if not better ;D