Trotsky sort of reminds me of the character in the one of the Batman movies who was called Twoface who had a split personality of being a good guy and the other half as being a criminal.
Haha! And that's the funny thing - yes, people can change, and many people did change (and become good, genuine Bolsheviks). However, Trotsky did not. This is obvious from his behaviors, actions, and even statements. For the latter, this was more explicit in his letters and conversations to/with co-conspirators in the '20s/'30s and on, but you can even see it in his writings meant to be publicly available [including before that]!! In the late 1910s/early 1920s, he republished earlier works of his which, ofc, had his anti-Leninist positions. He had the gall to note in new introductions to them (or w/e) that he considered them to *still* be correct "in the main."
Imagine accusing someone else of division while working with a faction literally called "liquidators." When I heard Lenin call this group liquidators, I assumed it was a phrase Lenin himself called them. Didn't realize they actually called themselves that. Being emphatic on critiquing certain party lines is nowhere equivalent to liquidating an entire faction out of the party.
You know, the more I look into Trotsky, I am left with one burning question. Who/why the ever living hell let Trotsky join The Bolsheviks in the first place? (Let alone allow him to be the Commissar for War and Foreign Affairs.)
I remember reading something in Sovinform’s “History of the USSR and the People’s Republics,” about Trotsky’s longstanding relations with British intelligence, specifically MI6. Could be worth looking into if you’re interested
They were going too easy on him for some reason. But there are other examples as well, like people who get arrested and kicked out of the party for espionage/terrorism get let back in until eventualluy being sent to labor camps or getting executed. And they say Stalin was too harsh on opposition.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Correct me if I'm wrong! But for Trotsky, it meant getting into the revolutionary leadership. For Lenin, it meant bringing Trotsky's talents and his followers into service and putting ideological conflict on the back burner. For what it's worth, Trotsky is correct about the unexpected turn from a petite-bourgeois revolution, due to the level of proletarian participation, which was helped by soldiers and sailors as well as the peasants' responsiveness to Lenin's mass line. Trotsky's last minute jump to the Bolsheviks would have been seen as quite correct under the circumstances.
So, lemme get this straight. And help me understand if I didnt correctly. First he essentially calls bolshevism/bolshevik structure and approach incorrect since it seems to contradict HIS vision/menshevik understanding of "permanent revolution" and how to get there. (Which, yes is quite f*cking blurry and subject to change within the mensheviks, going from stages to world revolution) Then he says that it actually doesn't. And that those criticisms should not be brought up again. [Not in the video] And once he was kicked out, he returned to saying it contradicts permanent revolution or just socialism in general. All the while completely omitting, at best, and not acknowledging, at worst, that the bolsheviks were under 3 separate and different sets of conditions ? I ask because I am trying to ubderstand the criticism, the lessons to learn here. I know there is the obvious "trotsky would change his opinion and support all the time", but I dont think of it as a fully baked criticism, since even lenin and stalin changed their opinions when faced with convincing and sufficient facts and arguments. Thank you comrades !
Refuse all bourgeois wars! Land back free Palestine, workers stand with the oppressed peoples of the world, unite! Bienvenidos camarada trabajadores del mundo
I am a leftist since birth, but uneducated (thanks America). I search for audio to listen to while I work. While this letter was interesting it would be helpful to add notes or a link to the material or event Trotsky is referring to for a better understanding of context. I sifted through the comments for a general idea. Thanks for the video I'm going to watch the whole channel lol
I find the second letter to basically be the equivalent of someone knowing they got skeletons and knowing it would look bad and just redirecting by saying people wouldnt be interested/ had to be there. One of those things where context doesnt really make it any better and of he had any desire to change would instead own up to having been wrong and just let it go
The irony or calling Lenin a splitter, what an enlightening two letters these are to his duplicity, if nothing else was.
cant help being a Gemini 😛💯
Send this to all your friends who think that Trotskyism is the "natural progression of Leninism."
Oh my goodness. I was cracking up at the letter to Chkeidze. Pure projection. It appears every accusation from Trotsky was a confession.
All praise the algorithm that many more may see this. Especially trots
1:58 (Talking about Lenin) “a professional exploiter of the Russian labour movement”
Trots: Trotsky was a true Leninist 🤓👆
Imagine receiving one of these letters. Like, “uhhhhh… yeahhh okay bro whatever you say!” Unhinged.
when i looked up the definition of irritating, i just saw a picture of trotsky
lol
Trotsky sort of reminds me of the character in the one of the Batman movies who was called Twoface who had a split personality of being a good guy and the other half as being a criminal.
What an apt comparison (no sarcasm, just tbc)!
Trots be like:bu bub bububu but people can change tho 😢😢😢
Haha! And that's the funny thing - yes, people can change, and many people did change (and become good, genuine Bolsheviks). However, Trotsky did not. This is obvious from his behaviors, actions, and even statements. For the latter, this was more explicit in his letters and conversations to/with co-conspirators in the '20s/'30s and on, but you can even see it in his writings meant to be publicly available [including before that]!!
In the late 1910s/early 1920s, he republished earlier works of his which, ofc, had his anti-Leninist positions. He had the gall to note in new introductions to them (or w/e) that he considered them to *still* be correct "in the main."
This just drives home that Trotsky was not the man for the job
Amen to that.
I love the use of the silliest photo of Trotsky
Let the man speak for himself and he will make a fool out of himself!
Never thought I'd read Trotsky again. Thanks for bringing this to us!
Imagine accusing someone else of division while working with a faction literally called "liquidators." When I heard Lenin call this group liquidators, I assumed it was a phrase Lenin himself called them. Didn't realize they actually called themselves that. Being emphatic on critiquing certain party lines is nowhere equivalent to liquidating an entire faction out of the party.
Thank you.
looks like Adam Friedland
My best friend Nick Mullen told me this was "Cool Adam"
You know, the more I look into Trotsky, I am left with one burning question. Who/why the ever living hell let Trotsky join The Bolsheviks in the first place? (Let alone allow him to be the Commissar for War and Foreign Affairs.)
Probably funded by the UK or US.
To be fair, dude was a pretty good military organizer and good speaker. That prob why the Bolsheviks let he in, same with General Brusilov.
I remember reading something in Sovinform’s “History of the USSR and the People’s Republics,” about Trotsky’s longstanding relations with British intelligence, specifically MI6. Could be worth looking into if you’re interested
They were going too easy on him for some reason. But there are other examples as well, like people who get arrested and kicked out of the party for espionage/terrorism get let back in until eventualluy being sent to labor camps or getting executed.
And they say Stalin was too harsh on opposition.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Correct me if I'm wrong! But for Trotsky, it meant getting into the revolutionary leadership. For Lenin, it meant bringing Trotsky's talents and his followers into service and putting ideological conflict on the back burner. For what it's worth, Trotsky is correct about the unexpected turn from a petite-bourgeois revolution, due to the level of proletarian participation, which was helped by soldiers and sailors as well as the peasants' responsiveness to Lenin's mass line. Trotsky's last minute jump to the Bolsheviks would have been seen as quite correct under the circumstances.
So, lemme get this straight. And help me understand if I didnt correctly.
First he essentially calls bolshevism/bolshevik structure and approach incorrect since it seems to contradict HIS vision/menshevik understanding of "permanent revolution" and how to get there. (Which, yes is quite f*cking blurry and subject to change within the mensheviks, going from stages to world revolution)
Then he says that it actually doesn't. And that those criticisms should not be brought up again.
[Not in the video] And once he was kicked out, he returned to saying it contradicts permanent revolution or just socialism in general.
All the while completely omitting, at best, and not acknowledging, at worst, that the bolsheviks were under 3 separate and different sets of conditions ?
I ask because I am trying to ubderstand the criticism, the lessons to learn here. I know there is the obvious "trotsky would change his opinion and support all the time", but I dont think of it as a fully baked criticism, since even lenin and stalin changed their opinions when faced with convincing and sufficient facts and arguments.
Thank you comrades !
Refuse all bourgeois wars! Land back free Palestine, workers stand with the oppressed peoples of the world, unite! Bienvenidos camarada trabajadores del mundo
Hasta la victoria!
I am a leftist since birth, but uneducated (thanks America). I search for audio to listen to while I work. While this letter was interesting it would be helpful to add notes or a link to the material or event Trotsky is referring to for a better understanding of context. I sifted through the comments for a general idea. Thanks for the video I'm going to watch the whole channel lol
I find the second letter to basically be the equivalent of someone knowing they got skeletons and knowing it would look bad and just redirecting by saying people wouldnt be interested/ had to be there. One of those things where context doesnt really make it any better and of he had any desire to change would instead own up to having been wrong and just let it go
Common trotsky L.
😂😂😂The temptation to say "Communist greetings!" from now on...
first
Trotsky bad (!)