I hear alot about this “trotsky was the successor of Lenin” line…where does it come from?
As comrade Dolores said, it’s overblown myth based on few last letters of Lenin which were most likely forged and trots build a legend around that which is very much ridiculous for anyone who followed the Lenin’s writings.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
Tldr: In Lenin’s final letters, he said Stalin was rude and that he might not show enough caution using power as Secretary-General
Stalin agreed. And he also thought the Secretary-General position shouldn’t exist: https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/
I dunno maybe I’m reading this way too ungenerously but this always felt to me more like political theater than genuine attempts at resignation. I mean if he really wanted to resign what were they going to do force him at gunpoint to lead the country?
He likely felt a strong sense of duty to the USSR. And if the politburo felt he was the best to lead it, even if he disagreed (not just with him doing it, but also with the existence of a leadership position in general), he couldn’t just “leave”.
He also talks about how he understands why he was the chosen one at the time. He was indeed a great war leader. He was objective, cold and calculating. The USSR likely needed someone like him during that period. They were in their most position vulnerable against the western powers since the revolution. The west almost aligned with the Nazis against the Soviets. It was very likely that a new invasion of the USSR by imperial powers could happen again.
Idk. No person should be idolised, and their faults and mistakes brushed over. But I mean, leftists are rarely ones to uncritically support anyone or anything…
but this always felt to me more like political theater than genuine attempts at resignation
Note that if you live in the capitalist country, you are conditioned to never believe politicians (and in those countries, for a good reason!), but it can be different in socialism, for example super high support for CPC or the new family code passed in Cuba etc.
Now do it on a website that doesn’t do Trotskyist revisionism (they even admit to it!) — wonder if it looks different
It’s an old myth that was invented by Trotskyists after they lost the inter-party struggle in the 1920s and 30s.
frankly both of them are dead now so it seems like it doesn’t matter anymore
Yeah, they’re dead and the SU is also dead, take what you can from both and move on.
Trotsky has good points about the nomenklatura and aspects of Permanent Revolution and Transitional Programs are well worth reading. Stalin is obviously more correct but I continue to take Luxemburg’s position on the national question, at least for western orgs (De-colonial movements are obviously a different matter).
It’s also wild that they believe this because it implies that they 100% accept the myth that the URSS was this despotic state where the last great leader simply appoints his successor with no democratic thought put into it whatsoever.
It’s not that they believe that’s how it was but that they believe that’s how it should have been.
They believe that Lenin should have had the king-like right to appoint his successor and they are furious that instead it was the party collectively deciding who the best person for the job was.
Nevermind the evidence that the so-called “Lenin’s testament” was a forgery, even arguing about that is a distraction from the main issue, which is that anyone who brings up this argument about Lenin having somehow anointed Trotsky to be the next leader is thinking fundamentally un-democratically. Lenin was a great man but he was still just one man. He still got only one vote, and i would argue his vote should not count after his death anyway, you don’t get to vote posthumously.
you don’t get to vote posthumously.
And when Juche Necromancy is involved…
okay but that catch 22 album was fucking fire tho
We would be all speaking german if that happened, at least in europe.
I don’t really know a whole lot about trotskyiskm and where it went after the October Revolution but I will deeply resent anything that helped give rise to neoconservatism. Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld are my mortal nemeses
Say what you want but he was right about permanent revolution.
I’ve never actually met a Trotskyist who claimed this, most of them understand that’s not how a worker’s state works.
It is probable that Trotsky never comprehended the Marxian creed: but of its drill-book he was the incomparable master. He possessed in his nature all the qualities requisite for the art of civic destruction–the organizing command of a Carnot, the cold detached intelligence of Machiavelli, the mob oratory of a Cleon, the ferocity of Jack the Ripper, the toughness of Titus Oates. No trace of compassion, no sense of human kinship, no apprehension of the spiritual, weakened his high and tireless capacity for action. Like the cancer bacillus he grew, he fed, he tortured, he slew in fulfillment of his nature. He found a wife who shared the Communist faith. She worked and plotted at his side. She shared his first exile to Siberia in the days of the Czar. She bore him children. She aided his escape. He deserted her. He found another kindred mind in a girl of good family who had been expelled from a school at Kharkov for persuading the pupils to refuse to attend prayers and to read Communist literature instead of the Bible. By her he had another family. As one of his biographers (Max Eastman) put it: “If you have a perfectly legal mind, she is not Trotsky’s wife, for Trotsky never divorced Alexandra Sokolovski who still uses the name of Bronstein.” Of his mother he writes in cold and chilling terms. His father–old Bronstein–died of typhus in 1920 at the age of 83. The triumphs of his [Trotsky’s father] son brought no comfort to this honest hard-working and believing Jew. Persecuted by the Reds because he was a bourgeoisie; by the Whites because he was Trotsky’s father, and deserted by his son, he was left to sink or swim in the Russian deluge, and swam on steadfastly to the end. What else was there for him to do?
… All the collectivism in the world could not rid him [Trotsky] of an egoism which amounted to a disease, and to a fatal disease. He must not only ruin the State, he must rule the ruins thereafter. Every system of government of which he was not the head or almost the head was odious to him. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat to him meant that he was to be obeyed without question. He was to do the dictating on behalf of the proletariat. “The toiling masses,” the “Councils of Workmen, Peasants and Soldiers,” the gospel and revelation of Karl Marx, the Federal Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, etc., to him were all spelt in one word: Trotsky.
Churchill, Winston. Great Contemporaries. New York: Putnam, 1937, p. 170
Regardless how close this is to the truth, this is yet another projection by the monster, the same one which he and his ilk thrown at each and every socialist leader: the accusation of desire for power.
I just enjoy the fact that even that rabidly drunk dog thought Trotsky was an annoying little shit with an ego that’s filled with more hot air than a classic hot air Balloon
Well to be entirely fair i somewhat agree with Churchill opinion of polish government in London as annoying losers. Especially funny in context of UK still not releasing their files from general Sikorski plane crash.
Churchill’s a sharp cookie, a damn Demon and rabid imperialist that’s completely concious of who he is and what he’s for. He’s called Bolshevism a great evil on the capitalist world that must be strangled in the cradle, wept and profusely thanked the Soviets under Stalin for their greatest sacrifice in defeating fascism, then heel-turned back around back to plotting the death of the Revolution the moment peace was on the menu.
He was a crafty old drunken boar who’s observations, when taken with a grain of salt, offers a different perspective on the issues of the time and allows the reader to grasp a greater understanding of a subject - Trotsky being a little shit, in this example - which in turn further rounds out the readers understanding of the world at that particular historical period.
And as an example of this in regards to how you also mentioned Churchill and Poland, let me also share the following quote from the period:
[In a November 7, 1944 letter Churchill stated:]
- …
- …
- Moreover, without the Russian army, Poland would have been destroyed or brought into slavery and the Polish nation itself would have been wiped off the face of the earth. Without the valiant Red Army, no other power on earth would have been able to accomplish this. Poland now will be an independent, free country in the heart of Europe with wonderful and better territories than the one she had before. And if she will not accept this, Britain removes from itself all obligations and lets the Poles themselves work out their own agreement with the Soviets.
- I don’t think that we can be asked to give any further assurances and promises to Poland regarding their borders or their attitude regarding the USSR. Poland fell in days to German Nazis, while the Polish government at that time refused to receive help from the Soviet Union. Those Poles that are now vying for leadership in Poland must think that we, the British, are stupid that we would start a war against our USSR ally on behalf of the demands to restore the Polish eastern borders which had the majority of non-Poles living in those territories. A nation that proved to the world that it could not defend itself, must accept the guidance of those who saved them and who represent for them a perspective of genuine freedom and independence.
Lucas and Ukas. Trans. and Ed. Secret Documents. Toronto, Canada: Northstar Compass, 1996, p. 224
Which is amusing to read as during the time period around the yalta conference, Churchill said he was willing to go to war with the Soviets over Poland, according to the book Changing Direction: British Military Planning for Post-war Strategic Defence, 1942-47 by Julian Lewis, as Churchill’s private secretary John Colville wrote
“sinister telegrams from Roumania showing that the Russians are intimidating the King and Government […] with all the techniques familiar to students of the Comintern. […] When the PM came back [from dining at Buckingham Palace] […] he said he feared he could do nothing. Russia had let us go our way in Greece; she would insist on imposing her will in Roumania and Bulgaria. But as regards Poland we would have our say. As we went to bed, after 2.00 a.m. the PM said to me, ‘I have not the slightest intention of being cheated over Poland, not even if we go to the verge of war with Russia.”
Yeah i did read that, some heartbreaking meme moments there. This is also why Sikorski was probably murdered by the Brits, as it was after his government opened dialogue and even signed a military pact with USSR and did not refuse further talks. Brits, with plans as above would do everything to not be “cheated over Poland”. After Sikorski died the only people remaining in the London polish govt were mediocre bureocrats and rabid anticommunists.
Do not search “trotsky sexting” on google and click on the first link to the r/teenagers subreddit
Worst mistake of my life
