Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?
If you spent more time explaining things rather than “dunking on libs” maybe your movement would be less on the fringe. I don’t have an opinion on who is more authoritarian, which is why it was obnoxious that you matter-of-factly made your point without any substance.
Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about “The Betrayed Revolution” because he didnt get his share?
Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered “leftist” who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/‘persecution’ after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren’t walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky’s weirdo ‘cause’
EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I’m sure there’s a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union’s massive industrialization effort, it must’ve seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I’d even say his assassination wasn’t necessary, and the graphic details aren’t something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky’s decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should’ve tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.
Wow. I guess someone has never actually read Trotsky or anything from Trotskyist. Try some Tony Cliff. Also, how you think Trotskyist sound today is not an indictment of Trotsky. Being critical of a revolution that has failed and the leaders and politics that followed is not the crime you think it is.
Jesus fucking Christ this is not the revolutionary left we need. Grow the fuck up.
edit: That’s funny, either you posted your edit while i was typing my response or I didn’t see it some how. either way. I’m sorry for being such a dick. I’m just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism, and rejecting any criticism of said states, as capitalist loving trash. Somehow Marxism has become a ridged dogma for these people. With the campist and the tankies distorting revolutionary socialism so much i fell like i live in upside down world. again sorry comrade. I would suggest “the two souls of socialism”. side note Trotsky was Lenin’s pick as leader not Stalin. Had he not “defected” he would likely have been killed by Stalin much earlier, like many of the seasoned former Bolsheviks who lead and then tried to defend the revolution against Stalin.
Tankies forget that Trotsky existed.
The fact that you think Trotsky would’ve been less authoritarian than Stalin betrays that you don’t know shit about him yourself.
I’m glad you could enlighten us with a post that doesn’t bother to explain anything.
Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?
Why post statements in the form of a question?
Because I wanted to know, why do you think Trotsky was less authoritarian than Stalin?
If you spent more time explaining things rather than “dunking on libs” maybe your movement would be less on the fringe. I don’t have an opinion on who is more authoritarian, which is why it was obnoxious that you matter-of-factly made your point without any substance.
I took it for granted that people who had a stance on Trotsky would know who he is.
I don’t have a stance on Trotsky. Maybe you should check who you are responding to before you automatically start “dunking on libs”.
Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about “The Betrayed Revolution” because he didnt get his share?
Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered “leftist” who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/‘persecution’ after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren’t walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky’s weirdo ‘cause’
EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I’m sure there’s a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union’s massive industrialization effort, it must’ve seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I’d even say his assassination wasn’t necessary, and the graphic details aren’t something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky’s decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should’ve tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.
Wow. I guess someone has never actually read Trotsky or anything from Trotskyist. Try some Tony Cliff. Also, how you think Trotskyist sound today is not an indictment of Trotsky. Being critical of a revolution that has failed and the leaders and politics that followed is not the crime you think it is.
Jesus fucking Christ this is not the revolutionary left we need. Grow the fuck up.
edit: That’s funny, either you posted your edit while i was typing my response or I didn’t see it some how. either way. I’m sorry for being such a dick. I’m just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism, and rejecting any criticism of said states, as capitalist loving trash. Somehow Marxism has become a ridged dogma for these people. With the campist and the tankies distorting revolutionary socialism so much i fell like i live in upside down world. again sorry comrade. I would suggest “the two souls of socialism”. side note Trotsky was Lenin’s pick as leader not Stalin. Had he not “defected” he would likely have been killed by Stalin much earlier, like many of the seasoned former Bolsheviks who lead and then tried to defend the revolution against Stalin.
I think there are more Ultras than Trots these days, this is like seeing a unicorn.