Stalin better than Trotsky Bukharin and Zinoviev ?

When i talk to others socialist they always say to me that Stalin can't be consider a Socialist cause he didn't fallow the work of Lenine and Karl Max .
But when i see the other options i see that Trostky was an Freemasonry so he is a bourgeois and the other two that ally with Trotsky to ripp off stalin are in the same line as Trostky to me .
I can only see Lenine the true Socialist in URSS and nothing more even in the world i only see Mao, Fidel , Tito and Vasco Gonçalves as true socialist cause those guys reject Social Imperialism of URSS .

What you think ?

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:When i talk to others socialist they always say to me that Stalin can't be consider a Socialist cause he didn't fallow the work of Lenine and Karl Max

That's an unfair characterization of Joseph Stalin. He understood and identified with Marxism and Leninism, he just happened to practice extremely repressive methods whilst constructing state socialism in the Soviet Union. Karl Marx most likely would have opposed the authoritarian methods which Stalin utilized, but it's debatable as to whether or not Lenin would have.

But when i see the other options i see that Trostky was an Freemasonry so he is a bourgeois and the other two that ally with Trotsky to ripp off stalin are in the same line as Trostky to me

I've not read that Leon Trotsky was a Freemason, but even if he were, that would have no bearing on whether or not he was bourgeois. (The Freemasons are merely a fraternal association of which rampant speculation, penned by overly imaginative conspiracy theorists, abounds.) Trotsky was an intellectual, best known today for his left-wing critique of Stalinism. In some respects, his critique was opportunistic and hypocritical, but he made some valid criticisms nonetheless.

I can only see Lenine the true Socialist in URSS and nothing more even in the world i only see Mao, Fidel , Tito and Vasco Gonçalves as true socialist cause those guys reject Social Imperialism of URSS .

What you think ?

"True" socialism is subjective, and since socialism is such a broad term, everyone has their own idea regarding who the "true socialists" in history were. I tend not to associate too strongly with specific figures and instead read from a wide array of revolutionary perspectives, taking from them whatever I find of value.

Celtiberian wrote:That's an unfair characterization of Joseph Stalin. He understood and identified with Marxism and Leninism, he just happened to practice extremely repressive methods whilst constructing state socialism in the Soviet Union. Karl Marx most likely would have opposed the authoritarian methods which Stalin utilized, but it's debatable as to whether Lenin would have.

Stalin could construct the Socialism in URSS as he said with " Socialism in one country " without that authoritarian methods like the purges, killing people of his army and the errors that he made in agriculture wich lead to the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine and all others URSS Republics .

I've not read that Leon Trotsky was a Freemason, but even if he were, that would have no bearing on whether or not he was bourgeois. (The Freemasons are merely a fraternal association of which rampant speculation, penned by overly imaginative conspiracy theorists, abounds.) Trotsky was an intellectual, best known today for his left-wing critique of Stalinism. In some respects, his critique was opportunistic and hypocritical, but he made some valid criticisms nonetheless.

Trotsk joind the same Freemansons shop of Winston Churchill , FDR and many others .
It was freemasons that allow hitler to get all that land and do nothing .
If Trotsky had win over Stalin the URSS would fall easy because of his vies about Socialist internationalism .

"True" socialism is subjective, and since socialism is such a broad term, everyone has their own idea regarding who the "true socialists" in history were. I tend not to associate too strongly with specific figures and instead read from a wide array of revolutionary perspectives, taking from them whatever I find of value.

I was like you before i read the work of Mao and Tito and i started to associate with them .

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:Stalin could construct the Socialism in URSS as he said with " Socialism in one country " without that authoritarian methods like the purges, killing people of his army and the errors that he made in agriculture wich lead to the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine and all others URSS Republics

He most certainly could have, and it's a tragedy that he chose not to.

Trotsk joind the same Freemansons shop of Winston Churchill , FDR and many others

I'll have to take your word for that. I'm honestly not interested in the history of Freemasonry enough to research the matter for myself.

It was freemasons that allow hitler to get all that land and do nothing

Did not Hitler suppress Freemasonry in Germany upon coming to power?

If Trotsky had win over Stalin the URSS would fall easy because of his vies about Socialist internationalism

Perhaps, but we'll never know.

I was like you before i read the work of Mao and Tito and i started to associate with them

Mao and Tito wrote much of interest, but neither of them held positions I consider to be flawless.

Celtiberian wrote: Did not Hitler suppress Freemasonry in Germany upon coming to power?

Yes he banned all Freemasonry shops but if hitler allow them to be back to germany the UK and USA had made peace with him .

Watch this on youtube : watch?v=dsRTLMAchZY

You could see why he hated those freemansons .

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:You could see why he hated those freemansons

In the video, Hitler is simply using a barrage of scapegoats (Jews, financiers, arms manufacturers, and Freemasons) in an attempt to persuade his audience that the Third Reich was being unjustly attacked by the Allied forces. The reality of the situation was that Adolf Hitler had started a war of aggression against nations which were allied with the West, and the British and American capitalists felt threatened by the possibility of German geopolitical competition. That is what led to World War II. If you read any of Hitler's writings, particularly his Zweites Buch, you'll find that he had every intention of embarking on a radical eastern lebensraum policy immediately upon rebuilding Germany's military strength. He was very far from being the man of peace he attempted to portray himself as in public during the Second World War.

Celtiberian wrote:In the video, Hitler is simply using a barrage of scapegoats (Jews, financiers, arms manufacturers, and Freemasons) in an attempt to persuade his audience that the Third Reich was being unjustly attacked by the Allied forces. The reality of the situation was that Adolf Hitler had started a war of aggression against nations which were allied with the West, and the British and American capitalists felt threatened by the possibility of German geopolitical competition. That is what led to World War II. If you read any of Hitler's writings, particularly his Zweites Buch, you'll find that he had every intention of embarking on a radical eastern lebensraum policy immediately upon rebuilding Germany's military strength. He was very far from being the man of peace he attempted to portray himself as in public during the Second World War.

But FDR is even worse because he attacked german/italian ships when he was neutral so all those capitalist are equal to him .
Most of arms manufacturers and big capitalist in germany financied hitler campaign and Stalin could prevent hitler from power if he allowed Communist party to ally with Social democrat party and form a coaliation goverment.

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:Most of arms manufacturers and big capitalist in germany financied hitler campaign and Stalin could prevent hitler from power if he allowed Communist party to ally with Social democrat party and form a coaliation goverment.

Yes, the German Communist Party following Moscow's "Social Fascism" line—which discouraged strategic cooperation with the Social Democrats—had disastrous results and the entire fiasco could have easily been averted. It represents yet another important lesson from history.

It sounds to me like Moscow became an impediment to many communists seeking revolution abroad. Is that an unfair assessment?

Its a very difficult topic, you have to remember that both Trotsky and Stalin weren't the best ''students'' of Karl Marx thought, one being a father of modern mainstream left (Wich I completely and utterly despise) , and the other father of socialist ''cult of personality''.

Yet, being a grandson and great grandson of victims of Stalinist rule... I am prevented from going for Stalin.

I'm polish too and most of my family was killed by both the Nazis and Stalin's regime so I'm in the same boat. We have both at least heard of how horrible both ideologies can be in practice.

Red Aegis wrote:It sounds to me like Moscow became an impediment to many communists seeking revolution abroad. Is that an unfair assessment?

No, you're basically correct. What the Soviets were most concerned with was influencing foreign affairs in whatever direction most benefited Moscow at the moment. Sometimes that meant supporting moderate governments to the detriment of revolutionary groups, other times it even consisted of strategically supporting reactionaries. It was realpolitik at its worse.

I strongly disagree with you Vasco. In my opinion Stalin was the socialist leader who followed more rigorously the marxism-leninism, more than any other socialist figure. Lets see the others that you mention first:

Trotsky- Contradicted some major marxists elements by advocating the stage jumping for instance. Lenin for political strategy and interests aligned himself with Trotsky in 1917 and the result was NEP some years later. You cannot skip stages. Trotsky never defended NEP although this capitalist turn was necessary to avoid the collapse of the economy and was a demand from the marxist theory.

Bukharin- The Xiaoping of USSR. He advocated the continuation of NEP and its development pretty much like Xiaoping decades later in China. With Bukharin USSR would have turned capitalist in the 30's and he had political support until his trial.

Between those two was Stalin. He was the only one who saw it right. He supported the NEP when he should supported it as a capitalist stage between the czarism feudalism and the socialist economy. After NEP's role was complete he abandoned it for the planned economy exactly as he should since the capitalist stage is only temporary, not permanent. Maybe he could have waited some more years but don't forget that Russia needed to be industrialized as soon as possible and NEP was not corresponding to that need. As Stalin said, the russians needed to catch the west development in 10 years or they would crush them like it happen with the nazi invasion.

As you can see Stalin of the three was the only one who followed Marxism.

Tell me Joe, do you think that history is a progression of ever increasing ideas that improve after each level?

Red Aegis wrote:Tell me Joe, do you think that history is a progression of ever increasing ideas that improve after each level?

I don't think history is only defined by it but why do you asked that?

Comrade_Joe wrote:I don't think history is only defined by it but why do you asked that?

He wants to know how legit a Marxist you are. If you want a hint look up the difference between idealism and materialism.

I am Polish and even more strongly identify with my Slavic side and I don't have any ills towards Stalin. And I am not a Stalinist but Stalin was 10x better that Leon Shitsky. Also Hitler's buddy Hjalmar Schacht was a freemason with ties to wall street just like Trotsky. Hmmmmm.

Godfaesten wrote:He wants to know how legit a Marxist you are. If you want a hint look up the difference between idealism and materialism.

Ideas progress. They evolve and become more complex. Case in point: science. This is not the definition of idealism. Marxists do not disagree with the notion that ideas historically progress; instead, they apply dialectical materialism to history in order to understand historical change as driven by alterations in material conditions. The ideas in a given social formation presuppose a certain material state. For example, metalworking and metallurgy are preconditioned on the existence of agricultural surplus, industrial centers require an exceedingly high degree of labor productivity to feed one part of the population by another, etc. Our thoughts are limited by both the material development of society and our status within it.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness."—Marx

This is not at all to assert that ideas are irrelevant.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I am Polish and even more strongly identify with my Slavic side and I don't have any ills towards Stalin. And I am not a Stalinist but Stalin was 10x better that Leon Shitsky. Also Hitler's buddy Hjalmar Schacht was a freemason with ties to wall street just like Trotsky. Hmmmmm.

I am not a Trotskyist, but considering the fact that you lack any real comprehension vis-à-vis most of what is discussed on this forum, it would be wise for you to refrain from commenting on issues such as this.

Rev Scare wrote:I am not a Trotskyist, but considering the fact that you lack any real comprehension vis-à-vis most of what is discussed on this forum, it would be wise for you to refrain from commenting on issues such as this.

Oooh spiteful much? I suppose I will keep my inferior prole slob mouth shut, thanks comrade!

Pantheon Rising wrote:Oooh spiteful much? I suppose I will keep my inferior prole slob mouth shut, thanks comrade!

Your comment was worthless. What was the purpose of insulting Trotsky in that vulgar fashion? I doubt that you have any understanding of Trotskyism apart from what you have gathered from your reactionary tripe. Moreover, Freemasonry should not at all be mentioned unless it pertains directly and concretely to the topic at hand, as anything else likely falls under the category of conspiratorial nonsense.

Rev Scare wrote:Your comment was worthless. What was the purpose of insulting Trotsky in that vulgar fashion? I doubt that you have any understanding of Trotskyism apart from what you have gathered from your reactionary tripe. Moreover, Freemasonry should not at all be mentioned unless it pertains directly and concretely to the topic at hand, as anything else likely falls under the category of conspiratorial nonsense.

First of all I read material such as his transitional program and his criticism of the Stalinist "bureaucracy" way back when that Trotskyist guy used to post here. Naturally after a discussion I checked it out for myself. Like Celt said, I found his criticisms opportunistic, and although he had some good ideas he had
nothing original to offer besides his criticism and his dogmatic elevation of Marxism as a religion almost with Marx as the prophet.

Secondly, reactionary has a specific meaning. Don't just throw it around to make yourself feel like more of a revolutionary. Historical Marxists like Che for instance also disliked Trotskyism, I guess they're reactionary too.

I mentioned freemasonry because it was already mentioned before. Just bringing up a true and coincidental fact, make whatever you want of it.

Lastly, I apologize you do not share my sense of humor, but Trotsky was an object of mockery on my part because all the Trotskyists I have ever talked to were uber cosmopolitan pinheads obsessed with socialist revisionism and how evil the third international was.

Godfaesten wrote:He wants to know how legit a Marxist you are. If you want a hint look up the difference between idealism and materialism.

I've got confused since i don't know what this has to do with the subject of the topic. I already talked about this i guess and I also gave my short definition of marxism with which Red Aegis agreed in other topic. I believe that history is the progression of the material conditions through the economic activity which determine the political and social environment. The further development of those material conditions led to the emergence of the private property and subsequently to a social split between two classes: the ones who own the means of production and the others who don't.

Did i pass the test ?