What would happen to Soviet Union if Trotsky took over after Lenin died instead of Stalin?
Marxist utopia or dystopia?
>>1326190
It would be, essentially, the same under any person.
There's a reason communism hasn't been tried, and it's because nobody can do it right and nobody ever will do it right.
>>1326223
I don't subscribe to this point of view.
It was difficult to achieve communism in the past, but not impossible. Though all attempts failed, they were not numerous enough to make it a rule.
But it will be different in the future as technology progresses, and the need for human workforce decreases. Communism will not necessarily ensue, barbarism is possible, but it will make things easier if it is attempted.
>>1326190
Certainly not an utopia. Trotsky had no issue with large scale brutality, and wanted a society of disciplined soldiers.
He would however have been less murderous against his fellow party members than Stalin was, if only because he cared less about his personal influence (which is why he did not take over).
The main difference is that he would have tried to export the revolution, if possible in Europe, and certainly in China.
That could either improve things in the USSR if successful, as the economy and trade benefit from better relations with neighbours... Or worsen them considerably, if it fails and turns the capitalist powers against Russia, sparking WW2 as USSR vs. the world.
It would have collapsed because Trotsky wasn't pragmatic. Even if he managed to last to WWII, he wouldn't have legalized the Church like Stalin did, and consequently would have lost the war.
Also, he would have been just as brutal.
dude world revolution lmfao class has no borders
It would have failed regardless of leadership. Kennan was right- the Soviet Union destroyed itself.
>>1326326
> legalized the Church like Stalin did, and consequently would have lost the war.
Wtf are even talking about? Stalin never legalized Church - it was never criminalized in the first place.
>>1326190
Neither.
I imagine Trotsky would not have implemented Gulags and censorship to the extent that Stalin did, but I also imagine he wouldn't have survived as long as Stalin, either.
He probably would have handled WWII differently, and been more of an isolationist.
Maybe establish better diplomatic relations with the united states. Try to avoid the embargos and ridiculous arms race that bankrupted and starved the soviets.
I hope he would have done as good with science and the space race. Shame the space race was motivated by the arms race more than by genuine interest in space.
I hope the US gov wouldn't have preemptively struck the Soviets with nukes under Trotsky leadership, or vice-versa. The US was all Red Scare as early as 1919 though, and were already confusing socialism and Communism even then, so that's not likely.
I hope Trotsky would have been kinder to Theists, but still gone with state secularism.
It's clear that Trotsky was the philosopher king, between him, Lenin, and Stalin.
>>1326363
> failed
> 70 years later
Nostradamus much?
>>1326376
> I imagine Trotsky would not have implemented Gulags
So much fail.
> Shame the space race was motivated by the arms race more than by genuine interest in space.
Soviets begun their space race in early 20s, you know. Long before a-bomb.
> It's clear that Trotsky was the philosopher king, between him, Lenin, and Stalin.
Trotsky was an opportunist.
>>1326376
>Trotsky more isolationnist than Stalin
Man, you should read more.
>>1326326
WW2 wouldn't be the same, if it ever happens.
Stalin has a lot of responsibility in the rise of the nazis. In the 1920s he ordered purges in the european communist parties that weakened them significantly, and around 1930 he decreed that their main opponent should be the socialist parties. That left a lot of room for the fascists to grow in power and popularity. Trotsky would have been tolerant with other leftist movements, and that alone might have given them the strength to stop the fascists from taking over.
Also, Trotsky would have supported as much as needed revolutionary movements in Europe. If the civil war happens in Spain, he would have made sure that the communists won, as opposed to Stalin who preferred not to take the risk of creating a rival communist model.
And if Hitler happens anyway, he won't be able to finish western Europe the way he did, with Spain as an enemy providing France and England with room to retreat and counter attack.
Trotsky would also take better care of his army, and not purge competent officers.
>>1326223
Dammit it's the communism has never been tried meme.
>>1326372
It was replaced by the "Renovated" Church which confiscated almost all the parishes and allows bishops to marry and so on, clergy that refused to accept it were imprisoned. But the Russian public hated it, and would barely attend, and Stalin, realizing he needed a religious motivator, released the dissenting clergy and turned all the parishes back over to them; the clergy that defected had to do the penance of apostates to get back their positions.
>>1326469
>Trotsky would have been tolerant with other leftist movements
>>1326486
More than Stalin, I mean.
He would have waited until they were no longer useful to start fighting them.
>>1326486
I hate to agree with you, but you're pretty spot on. His absolute refusal to negotiate with the Kronstadt sailors shows how tolerant of other leftist movements he would have been.
He might have been more tolerant of general criticism and objecting ideas than Stalin (just by virtue of being less paranoid than Stalin) but of rival political movements, absolutely not.
>>1326479
Dammit, it's the "communism means the exact oppposite of its definition" newspeak, mixed with the "i accept that soviet countries weren't democratic or republican even though it's in their names but i still claim that they were communist with no better reason" doublethink.
>>1326378
If you ever get a chance, read Gaddis' "Strategies of Containment". Kennan was right the whole time.
>>1326536
The reason for that is that the sailors were challenging the bolsheviks' power.
If these same sailors with the same ideas had been doing their thing in Kiel, I maintain that Trotsky would have supported them, even if he could not control them.
>>1326567
What about makhno?
>>1326574
Not that guy, but his movement was destroyed after they were no longer useful to the Bolsheviks.
>>1326190
Former Trotskyites became neoconservatives.
Figure that out...he was kinda capitalistic.
and being Jewish, the USSR would be an ally of Israel and Jews would feel at home in Russia, Trotsky would killed anti-semitism.
>>1326574
I read somewhere that at one point Lenin and Trotsky sat down and considered not crushing the free state, as an experiment.
Then they decided to do what they did.
But it was after they allied with makhno to fight against the whites. Only once that front was secured, did they decide to turn on him.
>there are people who think Trotsky was just some pacifist commie
Lol, no. Trotsky was actually more radical, violent and bloodthirsty than Stalin. It was his idea to collectivize agriculture in the Soviet Union, Stalin resisted at first, but he wanted to go further and militarize industrial labour, basically instituting de facto slavery in Russia. Not even Stalin had the stomach for that.
What would be really interesting is to imagine what would happen if Stalin didn't turn to the left in 1929 and kept following Bukharin policies. Bukharin was the real nice guy in that context, the one who had a plan not unlike the one implemented in China 50 years later by Deng Xiaoping, of allowing state-controlled capitalist development (he even said "Enrich yourselves" to the peasants, like Xiaoping).
I'd say if Bukharin took over Russia would be much prosperous by now, maybe even ruled by the Communist Party, though like China it wouldn't be communist in anything but name.
>>1326190
Trotsky was retarded and arrogant, so it would have collapsed faster.
Which is a good thing.
>>1326376
>I imagine Trotsky would not have implemented Gulags
Soviet concentration camps began very early under Lenin. He even used the term "kontslager." Read Solzhenitsyn
>>1326346
>Implying Stalin wasn't an internationalist
I honestly think Trotsky would've turned the USSR into a state like the Nordic countries, if he wasn't exiled and later murdered.
If you read his book, it does seem like he was more inclined to not have the means of production in such a stranglehold.
>>1326644
It's a stretch to say that he was more violent and bloodthirsty than stalin, but i agree with the rest. Bukharin was the only hope.
>>1326376
> isolationist
> Trotsky
pick one and only one
Trostky was the main proponent of "world revolution" -- a movement to topple ALL world governments
Stalin being pragmatic self, saw it was impossible BS dream so introduced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
>>1326190
The Nazis win.
He would turn Soviet Unio into a 'military base' where all people are just solidiers and need to fight for future communism.
I was teached so.
>>1326298
why would technology change anything
communism doesn't work because it ignores human nature
no technology or social change will eber change this fact
god lefties are so dumb
>>1327791
>thinks human nature is real
>calls leftists dumb
for tens of thousands of years humanity lived in more or less egalitarian hunter gatherer bands. the negatives that you ascribe to "human nature" are products of a material basis - the results of how humans adapted to living in agricultural societies where there became a division of labor and you had to adopt exchange due to scarcity.
overcoming that will allow humans to once again become egalitarian.
>>1327800
holy fuck you really have a mental illness.
Humans are greedy and marx thought they aren't.
Socialism and Communism never workes they have been tried they are literally the shitholes of the world but I guess that's all part of a capitalist conspiracy.
care to explain why there is no human nature I am curious.
Have you ever read a book about history been to a university or do you just watch commie circlejerk videos on yt without any evidence and facta because that's how you sound
>>1327816
>Humans are greedy and marx thought they aren't.
Not that guy, but no he absolutely did not. His entire premise for Communism is based on a dialectic conflict in which the workers, pursuing their own interests band together to overthrow their masters. This isn't out of some higher morality of communism, it's just basic class-wide egoism.
>>1327820
and how will you distribute the new wealth ? even ?
nope greed will focus all the wealth in the new upper class that lead the revolution.
oh look no more slavemasters oh look new masters
>>1326298
he actually believes the Automation meme
As a historian I must say that 80% of this thread is absolute and undiluted Cold War propaganda.
>>1328258
Like what?
>>1326190
MARXIST UTOPIA
WORLD REVOLUTION
END OF HISTORY
>>1330226
>human nature
>lefties r dumb
>automation doesn't change anything
These posts in communism threads are signs that warn you towards shitposting/retardedness. Simplest to ignore them.
I honestly think Stalin was the lesser evil, and this is coming from a man who despises commies in any form (born in Venezuela, married to Korean waifu who's family escaped from the north...don't give me that socialism has never been tried shit because I've seen what red-flag waving psychos will do to a place firsthand even if it doesn't meet your special snowflake definition, fags).
Trotsky believed in the militarization of labor and openly said "forced labor" would be required for his new society. I.e., universal slavery. I don't understand the meme about him being the nice alternative to Stalin when he was the most bloodthirsty of all reds in the civil war, the one who wanted to declare war on the entire world until there was nothing left but his slavery. Thank god the Polacks stopped him in 1920. Plus subjectively idk he looks like a classic charicature of Satan, imagining a world under his rule is truly the stuff of nightmares imhofamalam.
it would've collapsed.
1. marx didn't write a gommemism101 guide, 90% of his writings are about capitalism and the notions he gives about both socialism and the higher phase of communism are very imprecise and abstact, we simply dont know how to do it. (i personally can't take the communist manifesto very seriously at all)
2. we haven't achieve a global state of post-scarcity yet
i'm new to this stuff so take it with a grain of salt (at least i'm tying to be honest unlike the "MUH human nature" dudes, right? :^))
>>1326190
mensheviks where right desu,
>>1326190
if he actually pursued his hard-line internationalist philosophy as leader of the USSR I imagine that the West would have gone to war with them in the 1930s.
A possible scenario would be a fascist coalition, with Germany, Italy, the Balkans, Romania and Turkey attacking from the west, and Japan and possibly ROC from the east, with tacit backing from the US, UK, France etc.
>"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.
These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly."
Assuming what Lenin said about both of them is true Trotsky wouldn't have wanted all the power in his hands so at least he'd be open to working with other communists.
He definitely wouldn't have fucked up WW2 although he may have started it.
>>1326378
>Washington recreates roman republic
> 200 years later major empire with continued tradition of growth and progress on western world
> Urss
> aborted fetus since the beggining
> on constant crisis after 50 years since founding
>>1328062
We are extremely close of reaching it tho.
Industrial revolution did exactly that to cope with market and even press or even create market.
The creation of a cheap multipurpose robot or even a software for tasks could leave millions unemployed but i think that what would really happen is the creation of surpluss of time which industrialist could either use for hiring less goys (most likely) or redirecting their human resources elsewhere forcing people to educate themselves on subjects machines dont excel
I personally created a software for buying lab equipment (for creating buy orders) and you wouldnt believe how much free time it gives
>>1326190
Trotsky was a dick
>>1331587
>Washington and co. create factious, corrupt, oligarchic republic
>Kills millions of people in order to exploit continent's natural vast natural resources, a majority of which it squanders
>Economy implodes every 30 years like clockwork, rebuild it by starting wars, killing even more people
>Manages to luck into being world's biggest economy for a couple decades before being overtaken by a country that only emerged from the Middle Ages 90 years ago
>Shambling zombie of a state despised in its current form by a majority of its population
>USSR
>Descended from a backwards, frigid shithole of a country
>Entire infrastructure nearly destroyed by war, twice
>Still manages to become a global superpower, high standard of living, not one economic rescission in its history
>Basically dissolved by a coup, against the will of the majority of its people, who still want it back today
