this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
7 points (88.9% liked)

Main, home of the dope ass bear.

16087 readers
283 users here now

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!


gun-unity State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

guaido Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

smoker-on-the-balcony Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

frothingfash Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

just-a-theory An Amainzing Organizing Story

feminism Main Source for Feminism for Babies

data-revolutionary Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide


ussr-cry Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
7
question (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by DylanMc6@hexbear.net to c/main@hexbear.net
 

what do you think of trotsky? do you think he should've took over after lenin in 1924?

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trotsky was wrong with Permament Revolution. Both Stalin and Sverdlov (had he survived) would have been good options, but had Trotsky taken power and actually implemented Permanent Revolution by attacking the peasantry inmediately, relying on revolution in the west with a larger proletarian base, would have resulted in the death of the socialist project. Trotsky hinged his entire theory on the inability for the peasantry to ally with the proletariat, when the opposite was found to be true Permanent Revolution ceased to have any relevance.

Trotsky's later behavior was that of a wrecker, consistently splitting from the party line, and that resulted in his expulsion. Trotskyist parties since Trotsky have maintained the same tradition, and split like cells undergoing mitosis over and over. This lack of party discipline and frequent splitting is core to the lack of success of Trotskyist orgs, and is also why the generally oppose AES countries.

Trotksy had some good moments. He played a pivotal role in the Russian Civil War, and wrote decent theory outside of the context of Permanent Revolution. However, both Sverdlov and Stalin were more capable revolutionaries with stronger understandings of theory and practice. With Sverdlov dead, Stalin was the logical choice, and that's why he was elected.

[–] DylanMc6@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

if NOT trotsky (and if NOT stalin), sverdlov would be good. seriously!

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

in 1924, absofuckinglutly not, shittiest idea imaginable.

in 1937, definitely, Trotsky should have taken over after Stalin for a term or 2.

[–] DylanMc6@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if NOT trotsky and if NOT stalin, who do you think would be lenin's successor?

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

Why not Stalin?

[–] Moidialectica@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You should also post this in askchapo

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

Not unlike Jesus, I like the guy himself a hell of a lot more than his supporters.

[–] RedSturgeon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I hear him attribute to something negative, like almost all the time, it both discourages looking into his work, meaning I can't really judge him, and I also don't really understand what people mean when they call someone a Trotskyist, besides some vague idea that the person is being a wrecker who wants to split up groups. Are Trotskyists even a real force in play today?

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago

Are Trotskyists even a real force in play today?

Yes and no. Trot groups are very popular among leftist circles in Western countries, especially in the Anglosphere. I attribute this to being able to call themselves communist while at the same time conveniently wash their hands of the perceived crimes of the USSR and other AES projects.

However, I don’t think they an actual “force” in any meaningful sense. They mostly keep to themselves resigned to campus activism and play little to no role in actual class struggle (union organising, community solidarity, activism etc). Some trot groups (especially the IMT) could most accurately be described as cults (source: I was in that cult for many years).

IMO they are more interested in criticising everyone and everything except themselves.

[–] DylanMc6@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

are you angry about trotskyism being given a bad rep?

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago

Their bad rep wasn’t given it was earned.

[–] RedSturgeon@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

I'm calling them irrelevant (due to lack of accomplishments, that I am aware of), in very polite fashion. Which is the reason why I never felt compelled to learn more about Leon Trotsky himself and don't know what exactly did he do and talk about. Only what other people say about him.