Anyone who believes in "worldwide revolution", without caring for the cultures or heritage they plan to displace, does not care a jot for all the things which make humanity beautiful.
Stalinists like Ceausescu and Hoxha at the very least promoted Albanian and Romanian culture and mythology, tying it to their reigme. Internationalists like Trotsky would gladly send you to the firing squad for daring to take pride in your culture or history.
No. I'm not a fan of Trotskyism. In case you couldn't guess. Bearded bastard.
Marx made it plain that one cannot simply take over the (capitalist) apparatus and make it work in a socialist/communism manner. Similarly, Marx was also at great pains to stress that Communism cannot possibly be achieved without a fairly lengthy period of Socialism. This is because it takes time to move the people's mindset from a capitalist/fascist/monarchist etc mindset to a true understanding of what it is Communism hopes to achieve. This is particularly true, if paradoxical, of capitalism's lowest orders, since they are by far the greatest number, the least educated and probably the most passive.
What Lenin tried to do was to race headlong to communism in a political system which was certainly not mature enough for even socialism. And because of the urgent nature of the Soviet Revolution, corners were cut to create a Government effective enough to withstand counter revolutionary forces both within the USSR and outside it. This meant one ingredient necessary for Socialism was missing: democracy.
And what effectively happened was that the nascent USSR gained a new ruling class: middle class intellectuals, apart from one: Stalin.
When Lenin stated that he was deeply disappointed by the indifference and apathy of the Proletariat, Stalin was not surprised by this attitude. Lenin increasingly had to use force or, at least, authoritarian measures. And since Stalin was by now so deeply entrenched in the system, well, the rest you know.
Trotsky, on the other hand, understood that ALL old machinery of state had to go, and that people's mindsets had to be led, not forced. His notion of a vast "Red Army" of workers roaming the vastness of Russia and bringing forth unheard of improvements to the lives of the masses would almost certainly have mobilised and changed the attitudes of the proletariat: when ordinary people see big improvements, they tend to become less passive.
Trotsky would undoubtedly have done something about Stalin. He would have been a more humane leader because he believed that leading people by showing them improvements was how to win them over, rather than authoritarian measures.
Culture change is pretty much a pre-requisite for both Socialism and Communism. But since most people's notions of "culture" now are largely irrelevant, past history, half believed customs or are far from unique, it is hard to see why such shallow notions of culture have to be destroyed. And certainly, Russia kept most of its culture and Stalin even allowed the Orthodox Church when WW2 broke out.
Like the capitalists, he realised the church's tranquillising effects.........
Prove it. Do you still believe in Santa? The Easter bunny? Jack o' Lantern? The bogey man? Are those things uniquely American (assuming you are American)?
So what else do you have, really, that warrants "pride" that no-one else has? And hasn't your culture changed? And isn't it GOING to change? Ever heard of "globalisation"? Can't blame the commies for that. No, really.
I'm with Goering: "Whenever I hear the word "culture", I reach for my pistol". Except he never said that, playwright Hanns Johst used it in a play and it is often mis-attributed to Goering. And that's culture for you: can't even get its facts straight.
Culture is unconscious, not someone dicking about saying "let's do something cultural". The minute it becomes a conscious act of "culture", it's a joke. A form of national mythology, or like accountants dressing up as hells angels. They're fooling no-one.
Trotsky was no less ruthless than Stalin. It is a great misconception that he would have brought a more 'human communism' to the USSR.
This man was a proponent of anarchism and permanent revolution, an idea abandoned by Stalin, and wisely so, because it promised permanent upheaval, social degeneracy and was ultimately rooted in nihilism.
Under Trotsky, it is guaranteed that the suppression of state, destruction of culture and Russian identity would go unabated.
Lenin's ultimate goal was destruction of the state, which he saw as repressive and an obstacle to the rise of the Proletariat.
Not to mention that Trotsky would merely serve as a pawn of the Internationalist oligarchy which long seeks to get a complete hold over Russian resources, but has not managed to do it to this very day.
True, but in the case of the Soviet Revolution, they had to be extremists, given the type of enemy they were up against, and the reflexive hostility from most of the rest of the world's ruling classes.
I'm no fan of internationalism, but I believe that what's passed off as "culture" today would hardly be recognisable to someone from the "same" culture 200 years ago. Culture is as culture does. It changes. Like a man who has a brush he claims is 500 years old. 1000 new sets of bristles and 3000 new handles, but "it's the same brush"
I mean, what would most of our great, great grandparents have made of feminism, gay rights, gay marriage, modern divorce rates and men wearing aftershave called a "fragrance"? I dread to think. Or even the notion of black people being allowed equal treatment.