Trotsky would of brought "humane communism" to the USSR

Black Dog

Ad Honorem
Mar 2008
9,990
Damned England
Do you have to be so simple minded? It's simp!y not good enough to say "duh, Trotsky was a commie, and commies are always bad". In ANY discussion about socialism/communism, open minded people will discuss what socialism and communism are. And will not simp!y say "it does not work" and operate a half witted notion that "all commies are the same: bad". Start a thread called "all commies are bastards" if that's what you want. And capitalism hardly has a clear record when it comes to inhumanity.

Trotsky plainly was a communist. But he was not the same type of Communist as Lenin or Stalin. No, honestly. Trotsky argued massively with Lenin and was chased out by stalin. That would indicate that there were major differences of opinion.

Therefore. "communism" is not a monolithic term. This, amongst the open minded, leads to discussion of what it is and what it isn't and any possible examples.

If you don't like to hear anything even vaguely positive about communistic societies, that's up to you. So far we've discussed differences between Trotsky and others, how Soviet politics varied from Marxian theory and whether communism is possible. It is not enough to grunt "duh, communism doesn't work ".

Any discussion of communism is pertinent to Trotsky's ideas. If we went off on fascism, I could understand your objections.

For my own part, I'm ruled by my brain cells, not fat cells. Where altruism and cooperation have benefits, people p!ay the game. If we were ruled by fat cells where a subanimalistic impulse tells us that greed is the only motivator, we'd eat like pigs today and starve tomorrow. Humans have never done that.

And since, according to your strictures about staying on topic, we're talking about the 20th century, fat cells hardly cover material greed. If you think so, try eating a television.
 

zincwarrior

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,711
Texas
Do you have to be so simple minded?
insults? Reported. This is not Slate.

It's simp!y not good enough to say "duh, Trotsky was a commie, and commies are always bad".
You must be discussing someone else's post here.

In ANY discussion about socialism/communism, open minded people will discuss what socialism and communism are. And will not simp!y say "it does not work" and operate a half witted notion that "all commies are the same: bad".
Again you must be discussing someone else's post. I am referring to the fact that no group of humans exist in a society without greed.

Start a thread called "all commies are bastards" if that's what you want.
I'd take that as a given, but its not what the thread is about. Its about Trotsky.

And capitalism hardly has a clear record when it comes to inhumanity.
Agreed. Again you must be referring to someone else's post.

Trotsky plainly was a communist. But he was not the same type of Communist as Lenin or Stalin.
He ordered the deaths of rivals, helped set up secret services, and his military record was weak, replaced by deep penetration strategists who's theories were later used to drive the Hitlerites back to Berlin.

No, honestly. Trotsky argued massively with Lenin and was chased out by stalin. That would indicate that there were major differences of opinion.
That just indicates Stalin, like Sauron did not share power.

Therefore. "communism" is not a monolithic term. This, amongst the open minded, leads to discussion of what it is and what it isn't and any possible examples.
Irrelevant to the topic of Trotsky.

If you don't like to hear anything even vaguely positive about communistic societies, that's up to you.
Do you have these on cue cards ready to type? Try harder.

So far we've discussed differences between Trotsky and others, how Soviet politics varied from Marxian theory and whether communism is possible. It is not enough to grunt "duh, communism doesn't work ".
No you've pretty just discussed how everyone who disagrees with you sucks.

Any discussion of communism is pertinent to Trotsky's ideas.
The opposite. If discussing Trotsky one should discuss him, what he did and didn't do.

If we went off on fascism, I could understand your objections.
Are you calling me a Nazi? Thats cute.

For my own part, I'm ruled by my brain cells, not fat cells.
Skip a few meals and say that again.


Where altruism and cooperation have benefits, people p!ay the game.
Only if its beneficial. They don't do it to do it. There is always someone who wants more. You can't kill enough people to stop that. Your friends in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia definitely tried.

If we were ruled by fat cells where a subanimalistic impulse tells us that greed is the only motivator, we'd eat like pigs today and starve tomorrow. Humans have never done that.
O really...

And since, according to your strictures about staying on topic, we're talking about the 20th century, fat cells hardly cover material greed. If you think so, try eating a television.
Fat cells reflect that our bodies are structurally designed to seek more than we need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andyferdinard

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Perhaps relevant to this thread: once at a bus station in Mexico--Guanjuato, I think--I saw and bought a comic book entitled "El Diablo que se llama Trotski" or something like that which turned out to be a defense of him vis a vis Stalin. Of course, Trotsky spent a good deal of his life in Mexico and died there (courtesy of Stalin) so I suppose there are some with fond memories of him.
 
Jan 2016
320
Boland
Had Trostky or the likes of Bukhanin led the USSR it wouldn't have made it through WW2. Who knows maybe even before that.
 
Nov 2015
991
Mountains of madness
Had Trostky or the likes of Bukhanin led the USSR it wouldn't have made it through WW2. Who knows maybe even before that.
ussr survived stalin and his paranoid purges it would survive trocky.
industrialisation and five year plans were trotsky orignial idea and stalin opposed him on it in time but later took on his idea so stalin greatest asset-forced industralistion woudl happen under trotsky.
 

zincwarrior

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,711
Texas
Perhaps relevant to this thread: once at a bus station in Mexico--Guanjuato, I think--I saw and bought a comic book entitled "El Diablo que se llama Trotski" or something like that which turned out to be a defense of him vis a vis Stalin. Of course, Trotsky spent a good deal of his life in Mexico and died there (courtesy of Stalin) so I suppose there are some with fond memories of him.
Indeed. Stalin played for keeps and would reach out wherever you were, kind of like the mob.
 
Jan 2016
320
Boland
ussr survived stalin and his paranoid purges it would survive trocky.
industrialisation and five year plans were trotsky orignial idea and stalin opposed him on it in time but later took on his idea so stalin greatest asset-forced industralistion woudl happen under trotsky.

I think he actually borrowed the idea from Preobrzhenskii and his "primitive socialist accumulation". Can you give me a source for this claim? (That Stalin took the idea from Trotsky).

The purges were not as paranoid as one might think. This period was largely chaotic. Bosses from smaller regions were largely abusing their powers and Yezhov largely was responsibly for mass killings of innocents, which in the end led to his own execution.
 
Nov 2015
991
Mountains of madness
I think he actually borrowed the idea from Preobrzhenskii and his "primitive socialist accumulation". Can you give me a source for this claim? (That Stalin took the idea from Trotsky).
well i may be wrong for giving direct name of term those policies were pushed by trotsky before stalin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/souvar/works/1930/02/fiveyearplan.htm

In fact, the proposal to devote a greater proportion of the budgetary resources and the national revenue to the industrialisation of Russia in line with general plans belongs entirely to the Opposition, whose chosen spokesman is Trotsky. After the leaders of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state had condemned this proposal as utopian and its proposer as petit-bourgeois, they very quickly took over the idea they had condemned and more or less intelligently attempted to carry it out.

i am interested if you have additional info about subject as my knowledge on history of ussr and commmunism except some events is still pretty basic.
 

Black Dog

Ad Honorem
Mar 2008
9,990
Damned England
On the subject of "commies are always bad":

You must be discussing someone else's post here.
and

I'd take that as a given, but its not what the thread is about. Its about Trotsky.
Two contradictory answers to one statement.

And since - follow the logic- Trotsky was a communist, (and "all commies are bad") then this discussion plainly means "Trotsky was bad because he was a communist, because all commies are bad". Therefore, that IS what this thread is about.

He ordered the deaths of rivals, helped set up secret services, and his military record was weak, replaced by deep penetration strategists who's theories were later used to drive the Hitlerites back to Berlin.

And capitalist societies never do this? Ever? No CIA. no MI5, MI6, no gestapo, no MOSSAD? They never assassinate people?

Stalin's military credentials were even worse, and since the subject is about the relative humanity of a system under Trotsky, Lenin or Stalin, then it's plain to see that Stalin's military methods were about as bad as it could get. His one virtue was that he learned to delegate to people like Zhukov, another man unlikely to win "humanitarian of the year". Deep penetration was extremely costly in human lives.

That just indicates Stalin, like Sauron did not share power.
And the arguments with Lenin- when Stalin was seen as just a useful workhorse- did not happen? And how many pairs of presidents of the USA or Prime Ministers of Great Britain have we had? Nope: they don't like sharing power, either.

Irrelevant to the topic of Trotsky.
Nonsense. Trotsky was a communist. What next: boxing was irrelevant to discussion of Muhammad Ali? And since so many have not much idea on what communism is and isn't, it's fair that we should discuss this. That there is not one communism is obvious to anyone who has read up on this stuff. And if Trotsky's ideas deviate from Marx's idea (and they did), is this not important? And if not, why not?

Do you have these on cue cards ready to type? Try harder.
Maybe I should try using my brain and not my fat cells?

The opposite. If discussing Trotsky one should discuss him, what he did and didn't do.
And why did he do or not do these things? Because his fat cells told him? Or because of his IDEAS, which were communist and his own notions of what that meant and what it didn't mean. Ridiculous: NO historian examines a subject without trying to ascertain motives, ideas and influences. That's why most real history books are so thick.

One could say "Hitler was an insane megalomaniac with a Jewish dad who worshipped devils and humped his own niece and his real name was Shickelgruber..." etc ad nauseum, but that would be nonsense. His ideas may be unacceptable, but it's negligent not to examine them. Or we might just as well go with the ill informed version, as above.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Thats cute.
No. There's no need to grasp at straws. I was merely pointing out- not for the first time- that since Trotsky was a communist, talk of communism is necessary and on-topic. Talk of Fascism is irrelevant to Trotsky, since he wasn't a fascist. And fascism isn't relative to Trotsky in the USSR, which is what the OP is about.

Skip a few meals and say that again.
Done that. Last time, I used my brain to find another meal. I didn't just start eating the sofa. Fat cells are for surplus. Even in the 21st century. And there are plenty of animals who have enough sense (a) not to let their fat cells run riot and (b) store food for another day. Obesity is primarily a human problem. Fat cells are only capable of storing surplus food. They have NO computing power at all. Around 50% of the world also has a penis. If we attribute to that the same influencing power you ascribe to fat cells, we'd be worse than rabbits and be habitual rapists. Normal humans are controlled by their brain and moderate and regulate their impulses.

Only if its beneficial. They don't do it to do it. There is always someone who wants more. You can't kill enough people to stop that. Your friends in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia definitely tried.
Then you make it beneficial. What you don't do is skew the system in favour of those with a greed problem. Like mainstream capitalism does. And let's not talk about pseudo communist countries being murderers, you admit yourself that capitalist countries have done their share. What kind of misery have they afflicted their own citizens with, and are doing so at the moment? 1/4 of British kids born into abject poverty; parents choosing whether to eat or to heat their home? If they have a home.

Or the waste of people whose talents were never used, because of a system that keeps them in their place? I could go on, but it seems that you get this part?

Fat cells reflect that our bodies are structurally designed to seek more than we need.
Humans are not governed by fat cells. Humans- and even animals- are governed by their brains and do not blindly follow impulses from their fat cells. If that was the case, most of us would be rapists, cannibals and massively obese.

Most humans moderate their behaviour. WHY is yet another subject, and yet I'm sure you know that it's possible to be (a) sated with food, if that's one's sole criteria for happiness and fulfilment (b) law abiding and (c) altruistic and (d) partially selfish all at the same time.

Be nice to someone today because tomorrow, you might need them. That sort of thing.

And- very importantly- material greed for the last 2000 years at least has meant way more than just cramming your stomach full. And most people do have a cut off point.

As I said, you can't eat a TV set. Fat cells have nothing to do with a strong desire for a Ferrari, when one already has a Ford. Or a a car at all. The reasons for wanting these are complex and go way, way beyond the desire to satisfy physical needs, of which accumulating fat is not a NEED, it's a luxury.