Trotsky with Hitchens and Service Chapter 2 of 5

[Redyouth650]

Mr. Severice needs to check his facts; Stalin was aginst the German and spanish revolution. If not in vocally, then most definately his actions, his deformed "united front" called for communists to side with the Nazi's in order to "fight capitalism." as a result most did and were subsaquently arested after the faschists took power. Secondly he sold arms to the Capitalist spanish rebulic, and told the socialists to fight the anarcho-sindicalists rather than the faschists.

[fidomusic]

It would have been better if they'd have got a proper Trotskyist rather than an ex Trotskyist to defend Trotsky against service. Hitchens only does a half hearted job.

[alecrebel]

Bravo Prof. Service! Do not allow Hitchens to rehabilitate the troll with his BS!

[mattandersonWSWS]

Robert Service and other leading British academics have launched a campaign of historical falsification, slandering Trotsky, and denying his historical significance. The purpose of the campaign is to prevent young people coming into political struggle from learning about Trotsky's political legacy. David North of the World Socialist Website has written a number of essays in defence of Trotsky - see "Political biography and the historical lie: An examination of Robert Service’s Trotsky" on wsws

[brickman73]

communism is a fools idea...cannot work in the real world..you eliminate desire, and human nature...its a system for a machine...humans need motivation...need hope...need ambition...communism eliminates this

[sanj2008ful]

@brickman73 You don't understand that humans need all these things BECAUSE of capitalist oppression..human nature is NOT independent of our economic system.

[brickman73]

@sanj2008ful fool i understand more than you will ever know you communist pig

[sanj2008ful]

@brickman73 ooo nice comeback selfish fuck.

[Diosibundo]

Ugh. These guys are buffoons.

Where's Chomsky when you need him!?

[AlexanderRaccoon]

@Diosibundo

Chomsky is an Ass.

[Diosibundo]

@AlexanderRaccoon

Hhahahahaaaaa! Thats right, I meant "Where's Rush Limbaugh when you need him?", is that better?

[AlexanderRaccoon]

@Diosibundo

Dunno how he knows about Trotsky. Maybe Well, (Were they alive) Muggerage or Bennette. Perhaps Polkinghorne. So predictable that you would pick Rush Limbaugh though ;).

[villa72]

Hitchens is out of his depth here, but Service is hiding behind a biased historical hermeneutic. Still better than having some raving idiot neo-Trotskyist on (many of whom founded the modern neoconservative movement).

[Luchik44]

The historian's $10 Casio watch is painful to look at lol

[Blackthorn2323]

"Verse l'autre flamme" by Panait Istrati is a record of his visits to the soviet Union in 28 and 29. He also has great respect for Trotsky and he also talks about the bureaucracy. Now He may have be influenced by Trotsky-but was not, his book came out first and so were the other two by friends of his.

You really can't leave out the great hunger of the early 20es in the Soviet Union, it was a major shaping factor for the USSR and the party. It makes me think the historian is a dilettante.

[dgjelliott]

The Socialist Revolutionary party were definitley communists, they just weren't in line with what Lenin was saying about Marx at the time. Even combined all the 'non' communist ' which i take it your talking about liberals. I don't understand what your saying that the progressives and various other liberal parties got 61%? According to Bryan Caplan's statistiscs they recieved just under 8%. Well there is no evidence that the Bolshevik party tampered with the elections 1917.

[cheburashka1326]

As far as I know there was no such thing as "Socialist Revolutionary party" in 4th duma, if it is really numbers from Caplan's statistics I would question the whole thing. What I was saying if you take ALL the parties that could be considered leftists you would only get 39 percent("Russian Social Democratic Party", "Trudoviki", "Progressives", "Centre Party", "Octobrist Party"). I have real doubt about "Trudoviki" and "Progressives", but even if you count them as communist you are short .

[cheburashka1326]

One more thing Bolshevik party did not tamper with elections in 1917 they just dismissed it all together in november.

[apacheslim]

@dgjelliott

socialist are different to communsits. Socialists are democratic.

[pietrom2]

Service is a liar. No doubt about that. He does not do "service" to truth at all. I wonder if he has in fact read Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed. Not too difficult to understand with a reasonably intelligent mind or an honest disposition.

[ShapurTheGreat]

Is he a liar or just a bourgeois ideologue?

Then again, the subsequent question would be; what is the difference between the two?

[discronificator]

desperation?? proletariat revolution??

inevitable communist takeover of the world????

inevitable you people are a joke.

holy crap. your just reciting slogans from the 1880s ignoring everything that has happened in the last 120 years.

[discronificator]

"""The release of this book is just another sign of desperation of the bourgoeisie confronted by the inevitability of revolutionary uprising."""

wow you people really are completely dilusional, marxism has lost all credibility. every planned economy has been a catastrophe such that even leftist cant deny it.

and as for the notion that a free press is more oppressive than a planned communist centralist media is positively ridiculous. you people are living under a rock, reciting slogans.

[KenMacMillan]

Has anyone read Wall Street & The Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton?

[MassiveJungle]

I hate the way the interviewer screws up his ugly face and thrusts it forward as he askes his stupid question at about 4:55

[TheEnemyIsProfit]

Trotsky = bureaucrat bec. no "free press," etc.? Capitalist press needs to be suppressed for socialist revolution. Bolshevism is not mechanical but flexible with democratic debating and centralized decisions so that it can adapt to changing situations.

Stalin in fact did not want the revolution to expand. Other revolutions under more favorable conditions would have threatened his ride the fence privileged caste position of power.

Robert Service = disingenuous historian + pro-capitalist asshole

[fdoric6]

Service has just released a new biography on Trotsky--find details here

Historians in the service of the Big Lie:

An examination of Robert Services new biography of Leon Trotsky

The release of this book is just another sign of desperation of the bourgoeisie confronted by the inevitability of revolutionary uprising.

Vain efforts

[TheEnemyIsProfit]

Agreed.

I'm glad the WSWS and SEP are a part of the effort to expose this fraud.

[dontleademsomuch]

oh shut up, the working class don't want a revolution they just want more money.

[fdoric6]

Thanks for the revelation. Now just explain how the working class can get their hands on enough money to provide a decent standard of living--without resorting to revolution and you save us all a great deal of trouble. Working for wages has been tried for a while now, but that doesn't seem to work--what do you suggest?

[fdoric6]

Service is an anti-semetic lying jerk. Here is a review of his latest piece of hysterical historical re-writes

In The Service of Historical Falsification

A Review of Robert Services Trotsky: A Biography

By David North

11 November 2009

[discronificator]

@TheEnemyIsProfit

democrating debating amongst unelected ruling class, there is no place for human rights or individual autonomy under communist centralism. "flexible" holy crap. you actually think a system of unelected totalitarian autocrats is "flexible" and "democrating" ....but inalianable individual rights, and self determination and self governance is "oppresive" do you have any idea how many were butchered simply for disagreeing with the central comitee. have you ever lived under one.

[cheburashka1326]

I am just curios if you are aware of how "bolshevik" came to power in Russia? What the hell are you talking about when you say "lexible with democratic debating"? First of all in 70 years of USSR there was nothing democratic about the bolshevism, in fact to get in power they overthrew the democratic government(not the tzar). Second - early on they introduced criminal articles 57-58 (renamed 110, and I think 70x) which explicitly/severely prohibited any kind of "democratic debating".

[cheburashka1326]

"Capitalist press needs to be suppressed for socialist revolution" - this is fucking priceless. May I ask what is the motivation for the suppression? Could it be that people might make their minds up not on the bases of idiotic marxist dogma, if they are exposed to different points of view? BTW suppression of press involved anarchists publications as well in Russia 1917-1920s. There must be a reason why communists never got to power democratically.

[dgjelliott]

well the bolsheviks didn't but communists (menshviks + bolsheviks + socialist revolutionaries) got almost 80% or something in the constituent assembly elections in late 1917. So if bolshevism hadn't shut the constituent assembly upon its opening the soicalist revolutionaries (who may not have been as literally minded marxists as Lenin) would have gained power democratically as a communist government.

[cheburashka1326]

first of all socialists are not communists by any measure. Second of all the potential democratic victory of communists is just a speculation - communists themselves made sure that no democratic process can take place. Third I do not know where you get your data, but even if you count non-communist "Trudoviki" and "Progressives" you can not get more than 39% - check your data.

[apacheslim]

@cheburashka1326

its called an ideological war. ?DO you see any socialist or communist newspapers? None apart frrom a few shitty ones with a majority of the media and the govrnment condeming communism. Would there even be communist papers in the US? didnt they ban it in the 50s?

[cheburashka1326]

What does us have to do with what I said about events predating "50s" by 30+ years? As for the communist papers, I am not sure but I think they have some crazies in california publishing one. Good communist newspaper is an oxymoron for me personally, but I doubt you can define what "good" means in this context, nor, I bet, you can objectively explain why you call existing ones "shitty".

[apacheslim]

@cheburashka1326

the onyl timed there are true communists in the USA that are arguing key points is when the country is on the brink of failure rather than the communists now who are like children kicking and screaming for freedom. The communists inwestern countries are a bunch of hippies. FACT. I am trying to say that there is also a degree of media cencorship in the US towards socialism. Just take a look.

[cheburashka1326]

That is just an opinion. Here is mine - "true communists" same as "true christians" is an absurd concept, since it cannot be defined beyond an opinion. Also same as christians they have nothing to offer , but their baseless idealistic ideology and the history of bloodshed.

[apacheslim]

@cheburashka1326

Remebering mcarthism and the attitude towards communists before that in the US and you will see that they are jsut as hostile to communism as the communists are to capitalism.

[cheburashka1326]

mcarthism , while deeply damaging to the freedom of the people of this country and to the freedom of speech and to the judicial system of the USA, never came close to barbarian rule of communists in USSR, China, Albania, North Korea and the rest of "communist paradises". there is much to be hostile about when we talk of communism.

[apacheslim]

When i say true communists i mean the people who emerge in scarcity or famine or better extreme poverty. Its a fact most communsit states were the most oppressive. Although it is suseptable to exaggeration. For example I myself am sort of socialist not communist but i dont hate capitalism for a i realise i wouldnt be on youtube right now. But I met this guy at uni that who was part of a socialist group. He was talking to me about how oppressive capitlaism was etc etc etc gay rights etc etc.

[apacheslim]

That guy was in no way a socialist or communsit as he does not really know what it was otherwise he would have fucked off to cuba or venezuela. Thats the type of hippies yealing for freedom like children that are around us. That is noit true communists. True communsit fucking kill people in revoloutions. Do you really think that the type of people "hippies" like that can fight that way? NO is the answer I suggest you watch the documentary "crossing the line " British journalist interview aGI

[cheburashka1326]

It is not completely fair description - if you familiar with the theory (I hate to use the word, but that is what it is called) the main idea is to use lower classes for killing, Marx uses much better words , but idea is the same - arm least educated and least capable people of the society and let them do the work."hippies" as you call them are essential on initial stages for brainwashing work - historically they are usually shot right after.

[apacheslim]

What about the deaths of 1.5 million iraqis and afghans or the roughly 3 million dead in vietnam? the embargo on north korea causing many to die of starvation the same with iraq before the invasion. These ofcourse dont count do they. Ofcourse you will come up with a good excuse.

[cheburashka1326]

I personally do not support Iraq war, but I do support Afghanistan one. But all of that is beside the point - USSR/China participated in military campaigns in the same places you mentioned with equally(or worse) horrendous death toll. It is not about capitalism or communism, so I do not understand why it is relevant.

[apacheslim]

its not an political issue of left vs right communsim vs capitalism etc etc. It doesnt matter. The problem is ethical one. Its an ethical issue. Communist dictatorships excist where historically the people have lived under knigs etcetc. I thinky you over simplifying thigns by saying that communisms about using lesser people to kill others. And yes LOL hippies are the first to get shot ebcause they dont know what the fuck they are doing and are spoilt.

[cheburashka1326]

I am actually quite serious about "lesser people". Des Capital refers to them all the time as if they have more rights due to their limitations. "Nothing to lose .. but chains" it is about them. Historically (USSR /China) that was exactly the case - they make excellent executioners, they are easy to brainwash and to use. Same mechanism is used by socialists in forming the unions, but there instead of killing "revolutionary masses" are used for blackmail.

[cheburashka1326]

Forgot about ethics - I simply do not see why I brought the issue in. Are you implying that communists usually take over the society that has no ethical foundation? I personally know Chinese, Russians, Albanians etc. who would take an issue with that.

[apacheslim]

no che , thats not what im trying to say. Im saying that the reasons that all those crimes in vietnam in teh USSR etc etc both capitalist and communist. Is not an issue of them being communist or capitalist but ethical. You see my point? Ethics were the problem , as it doesnt matter what system you are under if they dont have the right ethics then you've got a problems.

[cheburashka1326]

AH - got it. No matter what communists did in any country , it is not a problem with communism, but an ethical problem with the people doing it. Yeah I heard it many times before in different form, sorry I strongly disagree - the record of communist governments is too consistent to blame it on any other cause. Absence of the ethics is a part of the communist (and partially socialist) idea itself. What US did to Vietnamese people during the war(!) USSR/China did to their own - huge difference.

[apacheslim]

@cheburashka1326

What aboutt he native americans that the Us wiped out? The mexican invasion. Annexing Cuba impovrishing it? Vietnam Iraq 1 and 2 afghanistan Iran Coup. The coups in latin America. The coup in Indonesia. Cambodia Korea. The lsit goes on. Maybe to their own people they are better but you hounestly cant say that the US give a reat shit about people in other countries.

[cheburashka1326]

native americans , yep it was genocide . Let me play the same completely irrelevant blame game - what about natives of siberia wiped out by russia 400 years ago, and tibetans oppressed by chinese? This is typical - communists atrocities are not that bad if you arbitrary compare them to unrelated events. Btw you forgot chingiz khan.

[cheburashka1326]

Mexican invasion - do you mean invasion by Mexicans?. Iraq1 and Korea are actually example of very successful interventions. I suspect Korean success is mostly responsible for prolong Vietnam war - US should have cut losses much earlier. Annexing Cuba - what are you referring to? I do not know why US tries to intrude on other countries but why is it relevant to communism? Comparative apologetic or something?

[apacheslim]

@cheburashka1326

were all those genocides because of communism? No it wasn't. Can you blame that on communism or would it be fair to blame the US genocides in Iraq and Afghanistan as because of capitalism?

[cheburashka1326]

Actually I can prove that they were in USSR. Red terror (1918) is clear attempt to follow Marxists idea of equality. Hunger deaths (Volga, Ukraine, Kazakhstan 1920 -1930) are clearly communistic attempt to force villagers into collective farming + an attempt to pay external debt acquired due to marxists economy deficiency. Gulag deaths(1920-1960) mostly due to the articles 56-58 of USSR criminal code which incriminates ANTIcommunist activities. All of that was in the name of communizm

[apacheslim]

OH OH OH OH what linguistic ability and attention to detail. I study law and I am still not impressed with article blah blah blah.

The Problem for the Lsat time is not a system but man. Look at every motherfucking country out there right now. How many are capitalist? Ofcourse you over look shit holes like mexico. Africa other latina american countries Russia, Indonesia,. Cmon cant you see my point, or are you jsut too brain washed?

[cheburashka1326]

I do apologize for my linguistic ability, I'll try to do better. I do no apologize for the rest. Actually if I look at the successful ones almost all of them are capitalistic. The successful socialistic once owe their success to previous capitalistic regime which in most cases they try and do waste (France, Italy, Spain, Sweden). ALL "shit holes" have socialistic/communistic government or they had it in last 10 years. Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best system we had so far.

[cheburashka1326]

So I guess I am too brainwashed - I do not see your point, unless you try to blame bad things on the human nature and good things on the system, but that would be too stupid of a point.

[apacheslim]

no not brainwashed but too repeditive. Men no matter the system will kill and dominate each other. Its happened before and is happening now no matter the system. Those coutnries with communistic leaders had a history of dictators in one form or another. Kings, Queens or Chruches etc etc

[MikhailSilverwood]

@apacheslim I don't you're correct.

Do you know how many wars happened during pre-class society, before the agricultural revolution? Zero.

Wars only exist because of the role money plays.

Humans are not naturally violent. If humans were naturally violent and sadistic, then why does PTSD exist? And why, when soldiers are about to enter war, must they go through dehumanisation programs to make themselves able to kill people?

[godofattorneys]

@cheburashka1326 Something being done in the name of Communism =/ something that naturally comes out of communism. Stalin and the other tyrants that ruled the USSR can claim whatever they like but that doesn't make it so. It seems you are a victim of both American and Soviet propaganda.

For your claim to hold any weight you would have to show how these things came about explicitly because of Communist ideology, and not either perversions of it or totalitarianism hiding under the guise of it.

[cheburashka1326]

@godofattorneys . That is actually quite easy. If your ideology relies on least educated and least capable part of the population, promising them the "dictatorship" in their name(this is Marxists term, not invented by soviets) if you promise them equal share in the collective - what other results can you expect? Do you expect rest of the people just to give up their right in the name of greater good? Or do you expect the proletarians not to use violence when they do not get what was promised?

[Denzil120]

Bob Service betrays his failure to understand his subject with every utterance.

Why would any publisher give him a contract?

[zootsoot2006]

God this interviewer loves the sound of his own voice.

[pitbull103]

Is there a difference between Stalinism and Communism? I am opposed to Marxism as defined by Marx. That is, I believe it to be immoral at its fundamental philosophical core. Did Stalin vary from Marx's philosophical core? Did he merely implement the noble ideal in a hideous fashion? Fascinating topic for another time when I can re-read Das Kapital, then follow it up with Atlas Shrugged.

[angryafro]

It would be pretty cool if Mr. Service could finish a sentence without being interrupted.

[Istehomo]

@angryafro I totally agree, the host seems to think that it's all about him.

[underground24020]

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SODOMY?

[MEpianist]

This is great, altho the interview tends to interrupt