Friday, January 22, 2010

How might Trotsky have directed Soviet Russia differently if he had gained control instead of Lenin?

Soviet Russia is often held up as a failure by the opponents of Communism. Its adherents usually retort that Russia was not a true implementation of the revolution. They frequently rally around Trotsky as a person they think would have gotten it right.





I am asking this as someone who has only brief familiarity of Trotsky, so background information (or links to it) are welcome. I am also interested to know the opinion of some of my socialist friends on this historical figure.How might Trotsky have directed Soviet Russia differently if he had gained control instead of Lenin?
first of all, you should have posted this in the history section.





it is also worth pointing out that, except in stalin's time, no one person held absolute power over the soviet union. lenin did in practice only because of his extreme popularity. in fact, he was not actually head of state during much of what is considered to be his rule. officially, that was a man named sverdlov, but he always sided with lenin.





as to lenin, he didn't rule for long enough. he technically ruled russia (or at least part of it) for 7 years, but there was a civil war going for 6 of them, and the civil war, combined with wwi, created a situation where society could barely sustain itself, and certainly not progress. during the height of the civil war, lenin's administration implemented a policy known as ';war communism'; in which resources would be seized from the populace by the government in order to keep the army going. this policy, while it certainly contributed to the communist success in the civil war, only compounded the economic depression. after the war, to stimulate economic growth, lenin reluctantly initiated the ';new economic policy'; which allowed for private enterprise and such in all but a few industries, maintaining government control of only small parts of the economy, like banks and railroads, effectively creating a socialist rather than communist country. lenin called the policy ';two steps backward to take one step forward'; and he meant to move away from it. still, the economy began to recover. lenin died soon after.





trotsky was a communist hard liner. he also had a strong stomach and saw the importance of the military (he was in charge of it for a while). he supported war communism and opposed the new economic policy. he also used brutal tactics in the civil war, instituting capital punishment in the army (which the bolsheviks themselves had abolished upon entering power) and even had soldiers wait behind the main battalion to kill deserters. the red army was composed of barely trained workers and peasants, so this was probably necessary, but it doesn't fit the romanticized version of trotsky that many cling to.





i think lenin was a better ruler than trotsky. i won't get into stalin, but its pretty close between him and trotsky.





as for your last question, almost every communist society so far has modeled itself on the soviet union. marx did not go into any detail describing the society that would rise from the worker's revolution, and so a communist society could hypothetically take about as many forms as a capitalist one. communist countries do occasionally have some problems with political turbulence, but i don't think stalin's rise to power has much to do with communism. lenin asked for an oligarchy when he died, and oligarchy's do tend to lead to dictatorship, but lenin also wrote denouncing almost all the contenders for power, including stalin. these last writings were composed on lenin's deathbed, and were played down by the government, since most people in it faced political ruin if it was discovered that lenin disapproved of them. but, lenin aside, communism itself has nothing to do with oligarchy, which is what caused stalin to gain power.How might Trotsky have directed Soviet Russia differently if he had gained control instead of Lenin?
My choice was ultimately between this one and the one provided by justgoodfolk. I think that justgoodfolk's was subject to ideological bias though I wanted specifically to see views such as his that inevitably would be so subject. In the end, mine was one of the two votes for the 'best answer'.

Report Abuse



The big turning point in Soviet Russia came when Stalin seized power following the death of Lenin, and overturned many of Lenin's social reforms and largely tolerant social policies. Stalin ran the country by terrorizing its citizens, one of his first moves was to kill off, or exile all the revolutionaries and anyone powerful enough to challenge his power. Had Trotsky been able to get control instead of Stalin, he probably would have continued many of Lenin's policies, and perhaps the Soviet Union wouldn't have had such an oppressive society.
The same exact way he handled the Red Army. Very brutally.





Trotsky is a hero to some but really he is just a loser who lost out on power so Stalin gets the blame instead.





Trotsky was a fanatic of the worst kind. He just didn't get a chance to kill millions.





Trotskyites are the MOST annoying of all communists.
Typical living in denial. So I suppose they didn't implement the revolution correctly anywhere else that failed to become a paradise either, like China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.?
Trotsky might have been a better choice than Lenin, maybe not, but I believe the main problem (concerning the eventual downfall) is one of a different nature. Although Trotsky and Lenin had their differences, they were still more allies than enemies, Stalin was the real problem in that respect!





Looks like we're covering Economics, Politics, History, and now Anthropology categories, with our answers.





My real answer to this question might (also?) seem a bit indirect, but it is a basic concept that I fully believe.





Real answer: It is illogical to expect a cooperative society (Communism) to compete, or to be able to compete, with a competitive society (Capitalism). It is impossible.





Attempt at explanation follows:





The basic facts:


Ideal Communism/Socialism, a condition of true individual equality, economically and socially, is simply an attempt at defining a practical cooperative society. The world has evolved into mostly an arbitrarily (';us'; vs ';them';) competitive (economically Capitalistic) society on a worldwide basis. ';Money'; is the main enabler of this, ';power'; being a synonym.





An analysis:


A cooperative ad-hoc system (of any nature) cannot defeat a competitive system because of the basic definitions. i.e. If you cooperate with someone or thing that is competing against you - you are insured of losing; and to compete with that system requires that you become competitive, thereby losing because you have now changed your definition (joined ';them';).





The primary issues/reasoning:


Cooperation is intrinsically a more basic life (not just human) trait than competition, however cooperative competition (tribe vs tribe, for instance) is a natural part (not necessarily adopted, but in our case it was) of early stages of development by any sentient life form. Once that life form (humans in our case) develops technology to the level of being able to have a practical effect on the survival of the species, it must make the unanimous conscious decision to universally adopt cooperation as the primary basis for everyday life. Competition must be relegated to non-arbitrary (agreed upon rules of engagement) uses, such as games/sports. This enables the highest chances of both the active (decreasing/preventing the effects of calamitous natural events) and passive (not self-destructing) continuation (survival) of the species. In a competitive society, it is simply a matter of waiting for the end.
OK. Thanks for keeping the Q open and my late response.


Everything starts with the economy and Marxism. Lenin and Trotsky were both Marxists and though they had their differences on some points at times they were united in the goal and means to achieve them. Trotsky disagreed with Lenin as people do but on most points eventually sided with Lenin.


When we say Stalin betrayed Marxism non Marxists often believe it's just rhetoric, influenced by our time were everyone constantly overuses big words just to make noise but it's not. Stalin and his oppressive regime declared communism had arrived while Marxism is a materialist idea. Not in the contemporary sense but in the sense that we believe people need the basic necessities to be in a free position to choose, that everything starts from people's needs, not from leaders or anyone elses ideas. That's the root of Stalin's betrayal with devastating consequences in every field which I will get into as far as the box allows me. Stalin's said here's socialism and those saying ';yeah but we don't have food'; were declared enemies and violently oppressed. “Law can never be higher than the economic structure and the cultural level conditioned by it.” (Marx)


One of my favorite passages in ';The revolution betrayed'; talks about this with a very concrete example in depth. Not gonna quote it all here though I wish I could because I want to talk about other aspects too but it is very important. Stalin is no Marxist, he threw Marxism overboard.


';The country can not get out of a famine of goods. There is a stoppage of supplies at every step. Children lack milk. But the official oracles announce: ’The country has entered into the period of socialism!’ Would it be possible more viciously to compromise the name of socialism?”';





';Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism. If cows are socialized, but there are too few of them, or they have too meager udders, then conflicts arise out of the inadequate supply of milk – conflicts between city and country, between collectives and individual peasants, between different state of the proletariat, between the whole toiling mass and bureaucracy. It was in fact the socialization of the cows which led to their mass extermination by the peasants. Social conflicts created by want can in their turn lead to a resurrection of “all the old crap.”';


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/…


Stalin's notorious oppression is rooted in his economic rejection of Marxism and substituting it with a planned economy where the people's needs are secondary to A the abstract concept economy and B the country's prestige. Marxism is about liberating people by changing the economic reality, Stalinism is about making people slaves


Stalin was also a nationalist who preached socialism in one country and not just pushed that anti Marxist idea in the USSR but worldwide leading to many disasters. The Cuban road, China, North Korea but also the subordination of the American working class to the Democratic party for example or to the social Democrats in Western Europe during the cold war and worst of all his lack of support for the German left and the non aggression pact with Hitler. All that comes from the idea of socialism in one country and co existence with the capitalist order. Stalin never supported the working class. Not in Russia and not in the rest of the world. That's because the interests of that working class were a threat to his regime, even more than any capitalist nation





I understand this part of Marxism is a hard sell to libertarian minded folks, they might not see a problem with socialism in one country or underestimate the importance of internationalism in Marxism. They might actually consider it positive to do socialism somewhere and indeed see the push for worldwide socialism as a threat as aggressive and the socialism somewhere co existing with other systems as a far more peaceful variant. However that's a misunderstanding of Marxism. Marxism is more than an economic system, more than a political way. It's the idea for mankind to evolve to the next level of civilization capitalism needs to be replaced. When we say like feudalism gave way to capitalism capitalism must give way to socialism that's because that's how we see it. Coming from that perspective it's like groups supporting freedom as we know it today in some countries but serfdom for some others. That's unacceptable and I hope that way of explaining sheds some light as to exactly how wrong that is





Of course the concrete results speak pretty loud as well. Stalin had his ';socialism in one country'; that lead him to see no problem in a non aggression pact and cooperation with Nazi Germany where Leon Trotsky remaining loyal to Marxism and his theory of permanent revolution made the analysis of fascism in the early thirties, years before the holocaust and world war, where he made a class analysis and offered the working class a strategy against the foul ideology of hate. Unfortunately his voice was too small but the record don't lie. Stalin's ffriend and time magazine man of the year years later Trotsky said no way and more important exactly why and how.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/…


No one likes the guy who's right but says what no one wants to hear. That's Trotsky. Integrity, sharp mind, strong pen








With Trotsky the USSR would have remained free. Lenin was too important for the revolution and got sick allowing a bureaucracy to sideline him. Did he do wrong because of that? It definitely went wrong but I'm not sure if he's to blame. We can't foresee everything. As I understand it Stalin and his bunch dragged on Lenin's life so he was still the leader in name while they prepared their putch. I say too much power and responsibility with one person (Lenin) though the intentions behind that were probably noble enough.





Marxism starts from reality, Stalin was first and foremost a liar
NOTE: This has nothing to do with your question and is in response to your most recent email regarding the ‘economic calculation’ topic. I’m posting it here just because I’m too lazy to cut and paste it into multiple (probably four) emails. God, I hate that 1000 character limit... or I hate my longwinded oratory... or some combination thereof!





I have asked more than once (and you or I can find it if we want to look hard enough in my Q%26amp;A archives) if something like “I don’t want to pay for someone else” doesn’t REALLY mean, “let those that can’t pay die” and that kind of question easily solicits multiple responses of “YES, that’s exactly what I mean, if they don’t have jobs and they can’t pay, let them all die.” These hard core ideologies have their roots in Friedman, Mises and the like. It does not necessarily have anything to do with their actual words but much more to do with interpretation, and that is my BIG criticism of capitalist theory and theorists. I don’t really contend all that much with the personalities or their literal words so much as I am inspired to outrage by their omissions and the crazy interpretations that vacuum invites. As an example I might ask: Does calculating production and distribution from price and purchase information mean those that purchase nothing do not qualify for inclusion in any calculation, production or distribution? Does Friedman or Mises EVER preclude the crazy literal interpretation by preemptively answering that question before it occurs? Despite any vague reference to the assumed ‘charity’ that presumably proportionately accompanies wealth, in my estimation they do nothing to preclude the crazy literal interpretation, and along with all my other crazy literal interpretations, I have long since concluded that the specific intent of types like Friedman and Mises is in fact to actively promote precisely that kind of brutality. Yes, I am assuming the worst in these people, and you are assuming the best, but in any event, out of the speech and text these people leave behind, rises a hostile extremist mob chanting, “Why should I have to pay for someone else? Let them all die!” This stuff is extreme, it’s violent, it’s very real and it comes from SOMEWHERE, and I’m pretty sure that’s not Marx. I choose to assume the worst and form the craziest literal interpretation along with a host of fierce rugged (and violent) anti-‘collectivist’ ‘individualists’ that evidently share all my crazy literal interpretations. You (and other notable subscribers to capitalism on this site) are demonstrably not among that crowd and I hope this more clearly states what I try to say in other correspondence. That is why I consider our more ‘technically’ oriented exchanges more peripheral to my intended context. I am presenting the classic capitalist theory from the perspective of the crazy violent extreme interpretation which is not only a very real interpretation shared by millions, but a perfectly legitimate interpretation founded on the material of record as well. Maybe it would be more fair, honest and accurate to say your arguments simply aren’t crazy enough for my context but just like there is a very real contingent out there that interprets “(right to) the pursuit of happiness” as “no guarantee of happiness”, there is also a very real contingent that interprets “production and distribution determined by price and purchase information” as “if they don’t have jobs and they can’t pay, let them all die!”





I’ve edited and tweaked my ‘economic calculation’ question a tad and hope you stay with future postings to keep testing it.





P.S. re: US treasury = central planning board, YES, agreed.

No comments:

Post a Comment