Trotsky would of brought "humane communism" to the USSR

Jan 2016
320
Boland
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.
From the link you provided, doesn't it point that Trotsky was opposed to the plan??
In 1925, the State Planning Commission, under the singular heading of “control figures”, apparently implying retrospective verification, for the first time drew up an economic programme for the financial year of 1925/26. With legitimate satisfaction, Trotsky commented in Pravda in August-September 1925 on the forecasting statistics from which came—he wrote—“the mighty historical music of the progress of socialism”.[2] But perspectives sketched out in this way were very quickly shown to be false and the calculations thwarted by the productive forces, the growing needs of the population and the antagonism of the social classes. The annual plans lacked width, breadth and vision. A first “Five Year Plan” was framed in 1927 for the period from October 1926 to September 1931; the “control figures” were to correct or modify year by year the arrangements for the next financial year according to the results of the past year.
The Opposition, under the leadership of Trotsky, made a thorough criticism of this plan, which it judged to be sparse and pessimistic. At the Fifteenth Party Congress, it showed that a plan like this had to be rejected as incompatible with the advance of Russia towards socialism: it did not permit a serious economic advance on account of insufficient capital investment in industry, and did not solve any urgent problems, whether those of increasing production, consumer growth, lowering prices, the scarcity of goods, transport, exports, nor of the defence of the country in the event of war. The Opposition mainly demanded that for industry budgetary allowances must in five years reach “between 500 and 1000 million roubles a year”; moreover, that there should be a tax of between 150 and 200 million roubles on the profits of private capital, a forced loan of 150 million poods of grain from the rich peasants, a lowering of wholesale and retail prices, a lowering of unproductive expenses, and the banning of the state monopoly of alcohol in two or three years.[3]




There is a great page on the topic of famine, agriculture and collectivization by Dr. Tauger (also some by Wheatcroft and Davies).

https://history.wvu.edu/faculty/current-faculty/mark-b-tauger/soviet-agriculture-and-famines

Enjoy!

From most reading it should be understood that the idea of collective labor was promoted through works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other populist thinkers. Stalin however as far as I can say was responsible for actually putting it into action.
 

Black Dog

Ad Honorem
Mar 2008
9,990
Damned England
Grow up. Report away. It's plainly the best you can do apart from trying to set your own criteria because you can't comprehend the size of the subject. This is a history form: intelligent people want discussion. Not soundbites.
 

zincwarrior

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,711
Texas
Grow up. Report away. It's plainly the best you can do apart from trying to set your own criteria because you can't comprehend the size of the subject. This is a history form: intelligent people want discussion. Not soundbites.
Your post is irony at its finest.
 

zincwarrior

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,711
Texas
From the link you provided, doesn't it point that Trotsky was opposed to the plan??
In 1925, the State Planning Commission, under the singular heading of “control figures”, apparently implying retrospective verification, for the first time drew up an economic programme for the financial year of 1925/26. With legitimate satisfaction, Trotsky commented in Pravda in August-September 1925 on the forecasting statistics from which came—he wrote—“the mighty historical music of the progress of socialism”.[2] But perspectives sketched out in this way were very quickly shown to be false and the calculations thwarted by the productive forces, the growing needs of the population and the antagonism of the social classes. The annual plans lacked width, breadth and vision. A first “Five Year Plan” was framed in 1927 for the period from October 1926 to September 1931; the “control figures” were to correct or modify year by year the arrangements for the next financial year according to the results of the past year.
The Opposition, under the leadership of Trotsky, made a thorough criticism of this plan, which it judged to be sparse and pessimistic. At the Fifteenth Party Congress, it showed that a plan like this had to be rejected as incompatible with the advance of Russia towards socialism: it did not permit a serious economic advance on account of insufficient capital investment in industry, and did not solve any urgent problems, whether those of increasing production, consumer growth, lowering prices, the scarcity of goods, transport, exports, nor of the defence of the country in the event of war. The Opposition mainly demanded that for industry budgetary allowances must in five years reach “between 500 and 1000 million roubles a year”; moreover, that there should be a tax of between 150 and 200 million roubles on the profits of private capital, a forced loan of 150 million poods of grain from the rich peasants, a lowering of wholesale and retail prices, a lowering of unproductive expenses, and the banning of the state monopoly of alcohol in two or three years.[3]





There is a great page on the topic of famine, agriculture and collectivization by Dr. Tauger (also some by Wheatcroft and Davies).

https://history.wvu.edu/faculty/current-faculty/mark-b-tauger/soviet-agriculture-and-famines

Enjoy!

From most reading it should be understood that the idea of collective labor was promoted through works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other populist thinkers. Stalin however as far as I can say was responsible for actually putting it into action.
So Trostky was in favor of banning alcohol...well we can see why that failed.
 
Nov 2015
991
Mountains of madness
So Trostky was in favor of banning alcohol...well we can see why that failed.
banning state monopoly on alcohol and banning alcohol are diffrent things as far as i know.

From the link you provided, doesn't it point that Trotsky was opposed to the plan??
he had disagreemnts with implementaion and stated goals. he had even greater goals in same direction and that was point of criticsm not that he wanted diffrent economic policy.
his first reaction as outlined were postive as this was basically course he advocated for.
In 1925, the State Planning Commission, under the singular heading of “control figures”, apparently implying retrospective verification, for the first time drew up an economic programme for the financial year of 1925/26. With legitimate satisfaction, Trotsky commented in Pravda in August-September 1925 on the forecasting statistics from which came—he wrote—“the mighty historical music of the progress of socialism”

Stalin was indecisive or opposed to central planning at and openly advocated NEP from what one i read but we coudl take this as politcal manuvering against Trotsky in theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#Disagreements_in_leadership

Also opposition as opposition is always criticising and think thre could be more.Although this coudl be interpreted as being cut off from reality.

will check links you provided thanks
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

Ad Honorem
Mar 2008
9,990
Damned England
Wasn't it the Tsar who banned alcohol in 1914? It apparently deprived the Russian state of up to one third of its revenues. Not clever, with a war coming.

I believe that the prohibition lasted until 1925, although some local authorities permitted the sale of beer and wine. It was vodka they had it in for.

The only problem was, most peasants knew how to make beer or vodka :)
 
Oct 2013
1,329
Monza, Italy
I didn't read all former posts so what I say may be a repetition, but I think Trockij sounds much more brutal than Stalin was; Trockij was active in the first Bolschevick governments which promoted centralism, removed soviet's democracy (representation of the workers); isn't it true that the Trockist faction, even after 1927 and the victory of the Stalinist faction inside the PCUS, was the one which promoted militarization of society (Trockij himself saw this as an ideal regarding the wrokers organization, E.H. Carr said), focus on heavy industry to modernize Russa - thus forced collectivization of rural areas, which was actually implemented by Stalin in the '30s.
 

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Let's try to get this back on track.


Originally Posted by Black Dog
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. s......

Black Dog, please give me the sources in Karl Marx for both of those statements. I've not read all of Marx (I keep falling asleep) but I've read some and have not seen either of these propositions.

Thanks
Black Dog, still waiting for the sources in Marx for both of these statements. Thanks
 
Feb 2018
71
Hong Kong
On the subject of "commies are always bad":



and



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.




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.



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.



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?



Maybe I should try using my brain and not my fat cells?



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.



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.



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.



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?



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.
Your Whataboutism make me Amusing, Cheka, NkVD making CIA and MI5 looks like Boys Scouts.

A crazy megalomaniac who would have led the Soviet Union to complete collapse by 1940s, as opposed to superpowerdom and thorough industrialization/modernization as Stalin did.

Trotsky was committed to perpetual revolution so he would have had he new Soviet state knee deep in wasteful wars when the Soviets -after the Civil War of 1918-21 needed consolidatiion and retrenchment.
Trotsky was like Che Guevera -an idealist and ideological purist like Robespierre .Such men are rarely of the stuff of which longterm rulers are made and it is no mere accident of history that all three -Robespierre, Trotsky and Guevera died violently and prematurely.
 
Last edited: