Trotsky favored a “militarization” of labor to advance the cuas of industrialization and collectivization. He prposed to order the workers like soldiers. Who knows if this would have translated into the nightmare stalin created but would peasents still have suffered greatly if Trtosky had taken control. One good thing to be said is that trotsky was a harsh critic of the bureaucratic nature that the democratic centralization appartus was taking. One more good thing to be said is that histheory of permanent revolution would have been a greater asset to the fuure of the cold war. His internationalist nature would hae paid dividends to the struggle in Latin America where the U.S. was far more active than the USSR. Fidel Castro even stated that they could have won the cold war if Cuban intrests(exporting evolution) hadn’t conflicted with the the USSR’s intrests ( contemptment with thir little empire). The nature of the USSR’s attitude could be attributed to Stalin’s nationalistic attitude. Had trotsky been in power would the future of the USSR’s foreign policy been affected?? I say yes We all know Trotsky was a far moe brilliant man than Stalin. Had Trotsky tken power do u think the USSR would have still become a world power??? I think we can all agree that Trotsky would have been better for the country and the future of communists all around the globe. Well thats my two cents!!!
Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler were both sadistic madmen, in addition to being ideologues. But whereas almost NOBODY (nobody who’s given any respect or credibility, anyway) argues that Nazism would have been a wonderful system if only the fuhrer had been someone nice than Hitler, there are still plenty of people, especially in academia, prepared to believe that the Soviet Union really COULD have been Paradise, if only the benevolent Trotsky had been in charge, and not that awful Stalin.
Well, Trotsky certainly wasn’t as sadistic or paranoid as Stalin… but let’s not pretend he was a great humanitarian, either. He himself said, “I have never been moved any Kantian sentimentality about the sacredness of human life.” He had no qualms about killing anyone and everyone who stood in his path.
In the long run, even if Trotsky had managed to ascend to the top of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, he wouldn’t have held it long. Stalin himself earned the loyalty of the Russian people through his appeals to their nationalism. That was no small feat for a Georgian (Stalin was NOT a Russian) to pull off, but there is absolutely no way a Jew could have done it.
My guess is, a Soviet Union led by Trotsky would have been annihilated by Hitler’s Germany.
It is unlikely that it would have been discovered that it was possible to get something through Trotsky’s skull.
You probably would have seen an increase in the size of the Red Army…probably another attack on Poland or Lithuania. I’d also expect an increase in agitprop spending, especially encouraging the German communists. You probably would have seen the same crackdown on the kulaks, and the collective farm system would still have existed. I don’t think the Soviet Union would have survived Hitler, though. Even though it would have benefitted from an increased Red Army and the existance of better commanders, I don’t see Trotsky expanding the industrial base the way Stalin did. Also, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact probably wouldn’t have happened. It was difficult enough for Hitler to make an alliance with Stalin. It would have been impossible for him to make one with Trotsky (Trotsky was Jewish, originally). This, of course, assumes Trotsky would have stayed in power…I think he would have been pushed aside by Zinoviev. A lot of it would, of course, depend on how Trotsky came to power.
Some of my relatives had supported (or, at least, rooted for) communist leaders other than Stalin, such as Trotsky. i.p. seems to be geting at the question of whether the bad things done by Stalin’s communist government can be blamed on Stalin, rather than on Communism.
FWIW my guess is that communism under Trotsky would have failed the Russian people, just as it did under Stalin. By now, we’ve seen communist governments under a variety of leaders disserve people all over the world.
However, it seems to me that Stalin’s ruthlessness was a key to his achieving and maintaining power. I don’t know that Trotsky could have gotten to the same position, even if Stalin hadn’t been in the picture.
As someone is bound to point out we havn’t seen any communist governments disservice anyone because we are yet to see a communist government. Read the Communist Manifesto for more details.
Trotsky, Trotsky, Trotsky…
I don’t think he could have done a better job because Russia was not at the right point of development for the revolution. In order for the revolution to be sucessful, there has to be a capitalist-produced infrastructure that can used to build the new state. The Russian revolutionaries started out with a starveing underdeveloped country…and they ended with more of the same. Even though the Red Army won, the time for communism was not ripe.
Trotsky would trust Hitler as much as he would have thrown him. Don’t mistake a gentler hand for lack of ruthlessness.
He might have advanced on Hitler before Germany totally built up, causing WWII that way.
Trotsky was just like Lenin in terms of his cruelty and devotion to ideology, to the exclusion of human values. There is no evidence that he would have been anything more than a harsh dictator, although it is hard to imagine someone crueler than Joseph stalin. The indictment of history is that Lenin set up a system that guaranteed the acession of monsters-men who had no regard for human life.This is his true legacy-as he himself admitted (on his deathbed)…“I believe that I am strongly guilty before the workers…”
Ah, Trotsky. What’s the old Russian saying? Stalin was a saint, for he made Lenin and Trotsky look like saints, or something like that?
Trotsky was pretty much a lot like Lenin-terrorism, fear, propaganda, etc etc. It would have been different, but make no mistake-Trotsky was not the kindly, scholarly old gentleman that many think he is. He was more of a romantic idealist, and I don’t mean that in a good way.
Perhaps a better question…hmmm…I’m gonna do it:
What would Russia have been like if KERENSKY had stayed in power?