NationStates Jolt Archive

Read what I have to say before you start voting or it will end up 100% Trotsky.

Look at the situation. Russia had just come out of a war and a crippling revolution and now they lost their great revolutionary hero, Lenin. Their were two possible leaders to guide Russia. Which would you choose?

Trotsky was a radical, advocating world revolution. He said this because Socialism needs the capital provided by Capitalism to truly form. Russia had little capital, if any. The Soviet Union ended up being built upon human capital. Trotsky was seen as wanting a return to war and revolution. He was not a particularly charismatic character when compared to Stalin but he was one of Lenin's favorites while Stalin was denounced by Lenin and he was a Bolshevik, not a simple worker mob manager.

Stalin was more conservative and nationalistic despite the fact that he was Georgian, not Russian. He wanted "Socialism in One Country". He still had his charisma from his days as a worker mob manager. Somehow, he shrugged off the blow of Lenin's denouncement and was supported by the majority of the Party. He wanted to force industrialization in Russia and we know how that worked out.

Look not at their later actions, but instead at what each was offering at the time. Which would you choose? supporting Stalin does not make you evil, in fact, at the time he was a smart choice. his later actions would null this however.

Who would I have supported? Trotsky. Nationalism should not be mixed with Socialism and I would have held to Lenin's wisdom. I would have held true to the idea of a world revolution and would have poured western capital into Russia and the rest of the undeveloped world as blood pours from a wound, as one gives water to a dying child.

Please post a comment on why you would support Stalin or Trotsky. If you're not a communist at least choose which you view as the lesser two evils.

Given the information I would likely support Stalin. Stalin seems more of the pragmatic type. I think that Trotsky would have probably driven the USSR into some form of trouble considering his idealism. I do disagree about Stalin's charisma. Stalin tended to stay behind the scenes before he became the glorious leader with his cult of personality. Stalin was a smart pragmatist. He did not give as many speeches as Trotsky did but instead put himself in the position with most of the power. I think that Stalin would be the man to get things done and Trotsky would be a person who can not get things accomplished due to idealism or something.

I respect Stalin, he was a master statesman.

Leon wasn't well liked among many of the Party members and Stalin managed to gather a great standing in the party. Silent, hidden charisma as compared to Hitler's Public Glorious Charisma. At least in the beginning.

Neither, but Trotsky was right, a single communist nation would be gobbled up and destroyed by surrounding capitalist nations.

Wow, quite a few stalinists. Either you kept an open mind or you guys are decidedly evil.

So why support neither Vittos? Support Trotsky if you find his ideas to be correct. If Trotsky's plans had worked, parts of Western Europe would help in the Comintern, and Socialism could have spread in a less oppressive, more democratic and successful way. if he failed, the Red Menace would have dissappeared and the blemish of the Soviet Union would not hinder future Socialists.

Neither, but Trotsky was right, a single communist nation would be gobbled up and destroyed by surrounding capitalist nations.

Is Cuba an example of this?

Wow, quite a few stalinists. Either you kept an open mind or you guys are decidedly evil.

So why support neither Vittos? Support Trotsky if you find his ideas to be correct. If Trotsky's plans had worked, parts of Western Europe would help in the Comintern, and Socialism could have spread in a less oppressive, more democratic and successful way. if he failed, the Red Menace would have dissappeared and the blemish of the Soviet Union would not hinder future Socialists.

The fear of him succeeding. I despise communism, and I would have deep reservations about any attempt to spread it. So Trotsky was correct but I would not support him.

Cuba is very dependent on capitalist countries for trade and is not communist. it is state-capitalist as most Stalinist nations are.

Right, but I meant this as you being in the historical situation as a party member. in their situation, who would you support. Trotsky is right, you would have supported him if you were communist.

Is Cuba an example of this?

Cuba survived for 30 years on Soviet subsidies. Give them 25 years without massive support and the Cuban government will collapse or privatize like the Soviet Union.

Hopefully when they privatize, they don't set themselves back 15 years like the Russians did.

i choose you, nestor makhno

Free Soviets: What is nestor makhno?

Right, but I meant this as you being in teh historical situation as a party member. in theri situation, who would you support. Trotsky is right, you would have supported him if you were communist.

Yes, that is correct. "Socialism in One Country" would not work. It would drive all capital to out of the country, and what human capital was forced to remain would work poorly. People who work because of fear of violence or starvation only work hard enough not to be killed or starve.

Cuba is very dependent on capitalist countries for trade and is not communist. it is state-capitalist as most Stalinist nations are.

What is the difference between state-capitalist and a communist state?

And it seems there is a bit of a difference in opinion between you and Vito. Did Cuba survive by trading with capitalist nations, or did it survive due to Soviet subsidies?

Trotsky was Jewish. Who was the last Jewish leader of any country other than Israel??

I would have listened to Lenin and supported Trotsky, but IMO there was no way he was going to become leader of the Soviet Union. The truth was it wasn't democratic, it was about power and the fact that Stalin had a lot more of it. And even if it were a vote Stalin would just have played on anti-Semitism and won anyways.

State-capitalism abuses its people, labor and the means of production for its own profit. Under Stalin and afterwards, that is what Russia became. Forced labor and killing laborers is not communist.

In communism, a less centralized system would have given workers a graeter amount of freedom in maaging themselves instead of fostering a new ruling class as the Soviet Union did. Under Lenin, workers were given greater freedom but even there it was leaning towards state-capitalism.

After the collapse, Cuba relied on foreign trade. Before that it was a Soviet subsidiary.

What is the difference between state-capitalist and a communist state?

And it seems there is a bit of a difference in opinion between you and Vito. Did Cuba survive by trading with capitalist nations, or did it survive due to Soviet subsidies?

They are currently trading with many capitalist nations, (although not the US) and tourism is booming. However, they were supported throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s by Soviet subsidies that wereworth dollar amounts in the billions.

If Stalin had not gathered his Party supporters, Trotsky could have won. Yes, anti-semitism would have flared up but Marx himself was Jewish. He would look like a messianic convert from the Zionist banker-Capitalists (not my term) and he could have used that to his advantage, showing non-Communist Jews as an evil. Anti-semitism from a Jewish person is not uncommon. He could have shown himself in a positive light. The fact that even an inherently capitalist person (don't flame), was a communist may have raised his support and may have helped other Jewish people squeeze into the sytem. The ones who didn't cling to their capital and means of production. (Wow, that sounded so racist :headbang: ) Many capitalists and rich peasants tried.

Seriously, no one cares do they? 97 views nine votes, less people voted

They are currently trading with many capitalist nations, (although not the US) and tourism is booming. However, they were supported throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s by Soviet subsidies that wereworth dollar amounts in the billions.

Just last year Castro bought $30 million of grain from the US. And I'm pretty sure the Cuban cigar I smoked a while back wasn't stolen from a Havana tobacco farm. I'd say Cuba's trading with us.

Just last year Castro bought $30 million of grain from the US. And I'm pretty sure the Cuban cigar I smoked a while back wasn't stolen from a Havana tobacco farm. I'd say Cuba's trading with us.

The US has had a trade embargo on Cuba since 1961, and US citizens are banned from visiting Cuba.

That cigar was illegal, good thing you smoked it.

Normally a Cuban cigar is referring to a variety of cigar, not Cuban-produced, at least nowadays. Either that or it is very old.

Cigars manufactured in Cuba are considered by many cigar smokers to be without peer, thanks both to the unique characteristics of the Vuelta Abajo region, in the Pinar del Rio province at the west of Cuba, where a microclimate allows for unequalled tobacco to be grown, and the skill of the master cigar-makers working at the local factories. At one time, this may have been unarguably true, but in the present day, even the most elite of cigar cognoscenti have admitted that the best of non-Cuban cigars have come up to the quality level of Havanas. Some believe this decrease in cigar quality is due to the number of master cigar-makers that fled Cuba when Fidel Castro came to power. Others have suggested the declining quality of Habanos is a byproduct of the industry increasing its production.

From Wikipedia

Cuban cigar is still used to market the cigars as high quality. Some old companies do this.

As for the trade ban:

Cuba currently trades with almost every nation in the world, albeit at a very small scale because under the U.S. embargo any company that deals with Cuba is barred from dealing with the United States, so internationally operating companies are forced to choose between Cuba and the United States, which is a much bigger market. This extraterritorial U.S. legislation is considered highly controversial, and the U.S. embargo was condemned for the 13th time in 2004 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, by 179 countries (out of 183). The main current trading partners of Cuba are: Spain, Venezuela and Canada. In time as China normalises relations with the Caribbean, China may also become a more important Cuban trading partner.

The United States bans its citizens from travelling to Cuba. Nevertheless, U.S. citizens can visit Cuba by travelling through other countries (like Mexico, Canada or the Bahamas) because Cuban immigration does not stamp the passports (the visum is a separate leaflet). However, U.S. citizens are liable to fines if discovered and prosecuted by the U.S. Government, although it has been reported that U.S. authorities are not overly strict with this.

From Wikipedia.

Their were two possible leaders to guide Russia. Which would you choose?

At the risk of sabotaguing the whole point of the poll, I think I would have thrown my lot in with Makhno here.

Ah.. Makhno, a ukrainian revolutionary. But the main schism was Trotsky and Stalin. And they were in power in the Soviet Union. And I really dislike anarchists. This is a communist schism in the Communist dominated Soviet Union.

This is a communist schism in the Communist dominated Soviet Union.

and both options had already promised to have me killed at the time of the power struggle. i'll stick with my first choice.

An anarchist soviet union. That would have worked.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Listen, anarchism won't work unless a society has an era in which the state helps to reform its citizens, remove greed, property, ideas of wealth etc.... It is the final stage after socialism, unfortunately so many meanings... let's call it communalism.

And I really dislike anarchists. This is a communist schism in the Communist dominated Soviet Union.

Sorry, but unqualified statements saying that you 'dislike' anarchists aren't really going to cut any ice with a chap like me when you are providing two potential mass murderers as the only other choices. Say what you like about us rabble with the black flags, but there is no way we'll ever come close to the body count the communists managed. Heck, even Hitler looks like a paltry schoolyard bully in comparison.

An anarchist soviet union. That would have worked....

Seemed to work quite well in the areas which supported the Makhnovist movement, and for that matter in those areas which put it into operation during the SCW a few years later.


Oh no, you're right, it didn't - both movements got stabbed in the back and squashed by the communists. Anarchism isn't the problem here: authoritarian communism is.

Stalin was a counter-revolutionary pig who had millions killed, I'd prefer the UNABOMBER to Stalin.

Stalin.

He killed Russians so the US didn't have to.

Seemed to work quite well in the areas which supported the Makhnovist movement, and for that matter in those areas which put it into operation during the SCW a few years later.


Oh no, you're right, it didn't both movements got stabbed in the back and squashed by the communists. Anarchism isn't the problem here: authoritarian communism is.

No, any system could have toppled it. True communism could help bring the freedom of anarchy with the ability to withstand other movements. After it had expanded across the globe, it would disband after all classes had been abolished. Unfortunately Lenin and his revolutionaries ruined Communism, putting a blemish upon it from which it willl never recover. Anarchism would have failed on its own merits if left to its own designs and then foreign imperialists could have capitalized on it's destruction. Besides anarchy really only works on a local scale when it works, how can you help to transfer wealth from Anarchist Germany to anarchist Russia and bring freedom to the poor people there? You can't.

An anarchist soviet union. That would have worked.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

couldn't have been any worse than the actual turnout

Stalin may have caused the death of millions of people, but he also turned the USSR into a great superpower. Sometimes the greatest leaders, do the worst things.

Stalinism was awful and I would have liked for Communism to live without that shadow. But an anarchist russia would ahve fallen to Nazi germany, to Japan, to any foreign power. The human loss would have been far greater than under Stalinism. I hate Stalinism. I hate Leninism. I like some parts of Trotskyism but all of them deviated too far from the decentralized society described by Marx. Anarchists shouldn't have been massacred, worker's should have been listened to. Russia was the worst place for Socialism. if it ahd happened in Germany, it could have fit Marx's model, any part of the Industrial world. No, instead it happened in russia. Its severe lack of capital and lack of any industrial power caused the Soviet monstrosity. If Western Europe had been taken, with its wealth, we could have seen a different Communism. A democratic one, with wealth, industry and lack of dictators. And Trotsky knew the value of this wealth, he knew what needed to be done. i believe he could have forged a new Soviet Union, one without the monstrous image, one for all of Europe. one to fit Marx's model.Instead Stalin took power and look at what happened.

Besides anarchy really only works on a local scale when it works, how can you help to transfer wealth from Anarchist Germany to anarchist Russia and bring freedom to the poor people there? You can't.

Simplistic answer - the rail system or the postal system: correct me if I'm wrong here but these have worked for years internationally without any central authority watching over them.

Instead Stalin took power and look at what happened.

Therein lies the nub of the problem: the fact that an individual can take power and be blamed for upsetting the apple-cart betrays all the 'scientific' ideas which Marx and Engels used to support their system. If the fact that the revolution happened first in Russia wasn't sufficient to show that the idea of dialectical materialism was deeply flawed, then a single man wreaking such havoc with the forces of history was the final nail in the coffin.

Trotsky's rule would have been not very different from Stalin's, if only more erratic, more resembling the Maoist rule in China. So, IMO Stalin wins narrowly.

Trotsky.
Stalin's idea of fighting for the Soviet Union, of the individual beneath the great nation was a betrayal of the revolution. Trotsky also had proper, workable plans, while Stalin pretty much stole all of his ideas from Trotsky.

It comes down to reading Animal Farm: Snowball or Napoleon?

It was a forced abortive revolution. it was forced in a bacwards country.It could not follow Marx's model there and so it became the Soviet monstrosity. Both Marx and Engels warned against revolutions in ill-developed societies. They also warned against great centralization. Lenin ignored that to fit his own megalomaniacal dreams. They warned against leadership deification. They knew their ideas were not infallible and were completely wrong in some circumstances.

As for railways and postal systems, they do have authorities to look after them. Also how will Deutschmarks help a man in Pietrograd if there is no way to exchange them or find the correct value for them? Without a central bank you can not help to transfer wealt. Without a central authority you cannot help to spread wealth because it will be useless without proper guidelines unless you want to go back to the era of precious coins and even more unbstable markets.Anarchy can not spread wealth.

The US has had a trade embargo on Cuba since 1961, and US citizens are banned from visiting Cuba.

That cigar was illegal, good thing you smoked it.

I've smoked worse... ;)

Trotsky could have helped to reform the Soviet Union. it still wouldn't be perfect, it still wouldn't be true communism but it would be better than Stalinism. The abandoned world revolution was stupid. Nationalism and Socialism shouldn't mix. If the Soviet Union had kept on supporting revolution, we could see a different world before us.

this thread has become an argument between socialists and anarchist while the other thread I was in was the fight between socialists and libertarians and fascists, oh my!

Trotsky.
Stalin's idea of fighting for the Soviet Union, of the individual beneath the great nation was a betrayal of the revolution. Trotsky also had proper, workable plans, while Stalin pretty much stole all of his ideas from Trotsky.

...
That's debatable. Trotsky was insisting on militarization of all workers (so-called trudarmiya, 'labour army'), he always supported more coercion on the home front during the Civil War. But he was an early globalist, that's true. :)

Trotsky.

From what I remember, trotsky was against a dictator having control over the CCCP until true communism was formed, while lenin and stalin were for it. And I completely agree with trotsky that a communist nation cannot stand around capitalist ones.

They are currently trading with many capitalist nations, (although not the US) and tourism is booming. However, they were supported throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s by Soviet subsidies that wereworth dollar amounts in the billions.

Do you think Cuba's foreign trade policy is simply an issue of compromising pragmatics with ideology? After all, Cuba is a tiny island in comparison to the U.S. Can it afford to be picky as to who it trades with?

As for railways and postal systems, they do have authorities to look after them.

There is no international body which looks over the interests of either: they operate through agreements between states.

Without a central bank you can not help to transfer wealt. Without a central authority you cannot help to spread wealth because it will be useless without proper guidelines unless you want to go back to the era of precious coins and even more unbstable markets.Anarchy can not spread wealth.

Why spread 'wealth' when the need is for actual tangible commodities?

There is no international body which looks over the interests of either: they operate through agreements between states.



Why spread 'wealth' when the need is for actual tangible commodities?

This is something that I was wondering as well. In order for a communist society to survive does it require the kind of capital gained from international trade?

Well I wouldn't have chosen either, but since a decision is neccessary here, I'd have voted for Stalin because I don't want an ice pick through my forehead. Both would have been tireless dictators, so it would seem smartest and most proper to go for the man with more power.