I visited the house a few months ago. Absolutley fascinating. I recommend it even if you are only marginally interested in Trotsky. In my case I was lucky enough to get a one on one tour in English!
For 43 years of my conscious life, I have remained a revolutionist; for 42 of them, I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again, I would, of course, try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist,
Trotsky did not switch allegiance so much as he couldn't stand Stalin's totalitarian control. Trotsky claimed you cannot have socialism without democracy. So he really was not alongside Stalin or of the same party as Stalin at all. It seemed they agreed, but only to a point. He was against communist & capitalism; anyone against capitalism is an idiot. He deserves what he got. His socialist followers continued on with his rhetoric, ignoring human rights of the individual & meritocracy.
Indeed and I stand corrected. I should say that I recently watched the DVD documentary "Trotsky y Mexico: dos revolucionarios de XX Siglo", available at the Trotsky House - and with good English subtitles. It's an excellent documentary and I'm glad I purchased it there.
Because it was his idea to have commissars rule over the people instead of having a representative democracy. But Socialism would've never worked on the size and scale the Bolsheviks wanted, Trotsky knew this and conceded with the right wing of the party. You cannot force people into socialism, it has to be a voluntary revolution.
I see so the American Revolution was a "Voluntary Revolution", If it was not, than why do you want to force voluntarism on one revolution and not the other. Is asking for consistency too much to ask of you.?
I don't really understand your point. One can't force voluntarism; that's an obvious oxymoron. And where does the American revolution factor into what I'm saying?
How do you define revolution? is it a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" ? Or is it overthrow of a government by those it previously governed? Marxist socialism is overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and to replace it with social or workers ownership of the means of production. Only someone that is politocally naive would think that capitalist are going to give up the capitalist system voluntarly. How many voluntarly revolutions can you name?
I would say that if revolution is happening it is often indicative of peoples attitudes. Socialist revolution in Russia only lasted until 1917 - workers had no control from that point on and the USSR became a centralized autocratic hierarchy. It was a little different from other state-capitalist societies in terms of management, but by no means was it a socialist nation.
More libertarian societies have existed in Spain, Mexico, and Israel. Kibbutzim has been mostly privatized in Israel now, the Republicans lost the Spanish Civil War, but Chiapas is still protected by the Zapitistas.
What exactly do you stand for? I hear Libertarian a lot. Are you anti Marxism? And pro "Representative Democracy", as its alleged we have in the US. Does Noam Chomsky best reflect what you believe in?
Marx never lived to see the socialist experiment in Russia. So I've never found the use of the term Marxist to be appropriate when referring to the Soviet Union.
Do you understand that their are two strands of socialism? Statist and Libertarian. Obviously the difference is determined by the amount of direct democracy, as opposed to a representative one, or none at all. The libertarian movement has always been a workers movement. Libertarianism in the United States is repackaged fascism.
Chomsky is an important figure, but hasn't contributed much to anarcho-syndicalist thought. Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin are closest to my views but I view their revolutionary rhetoric as indicative of the plight of the industrial era.
I would agree that Libertarianism in the US is repackaged fascism. I would like to ask you a question, to see how we differ in the answer. What objective condition, if any had to exist before slavery could exist? Specifically chattel slavery.
That's a very good question. (Using your country as an example) I obviously would say that racial indifference was a major subjective condition for why chattel slavery lasted for so long in America, but economic disparity in the South obviously was the major objective condition. Civil change almost always relies on both a good economic environment and unified social structure.
I like your answer but I meant, when slavery first arose or for example in Greek and Roman times, what if any objective condition had to exist before a slave owning economy could exist?
There are numerous reasons, but the ability for people to organize and share ideas was the major condition in my mind. You and I can both read and write, we can share ideas and voice our dissent from thousands of miles away, and there's nothing that can legally be done about it. From the perspective of slaves in an ancient society, affecting societal change was impossible without the right subjective conditions.
Humanity has always been a hierarchical species, but the major condition for that is that knowledge and experience have been limited to few people, and thus opportunity. Women in western society would be a perfect example of this. Until they became part of the workforce, they had no say in anything but "what's for dinner". Now they can do virtually everything men can do and it's only been a less then a hundred years since they weren't able to vote.
This is exciting to watch. Now the red revolution is sweeping Latin America. All Americans who want to be ready to sweep capitalism away, must join local neighborhood groups, like Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, ANSWER, & study groups to understand the need for socialism. Our hour is near. We must stop the Obama war machine to put all the troops out of Afghanistan.
Stop all wars. People need jobs, bread, women's liberation & solar houses, not war. Study Trotsky & Marks.
1. In the Frida Kahlo Museum, there are two portraits of Stalin, painted by Kahlo. Both are from her later life, and they show Stalin in a very positive light. Also, over her deathbead, are portraits of Marx, Engels, Stalin, and Mao.
2. Rivera went to Russia for cancer treatment in the early 50's. That was possible only if one was on good terms with Uncle Joe.
One needn't be a Trotskyite to enjoy the historical significance of the place. It's beautifully maintained and quiet enough to allow one opportunity to reflect on what happened in and around the place.
Your lucky you were able to visit. I consider Trotsky a martyr to the revolution, and would have an amazing experience if i could have gone. Is the museum in a dangerous neighborhood?
It's in Coyoacan, just a few blocks north of Frida Kahlo's house, which is now an excellent little museum. It's a great day trip in Mexico City. If you take the subway there, be sure to do it outside of peak user times, say between 10:30 and 2:30.
I think you missed the nuance of my comment... he had to leave for health reasons because Stalin wanted him dead. The members of Trotsky's family still in Russia were murdered. He escaped with his wife and grandson: his grandson, by the way, runs the museum in Mexico.
I visited the house a few months ago. Absolutley fascinating. I recommend it even if you are only marginally interested in Trotsky. In my case I was lucky enough to get a one on one tour in English!
fidomusic 11 months ago
For 43 years of my conscious life, I have remained a revolutionist; for 42 of them, I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again, I would, of course, try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist,
Porgot138 1 year ago
Trotsky did not switch allegiance so much as he couldn't stand Stalin's totalitarian control. Trotsky claimed you cannot have socialism without democracy. So he really was not alongside Stalin or of the same party as Stalin at all. It seemed they agreed, but only to a point. He was against communist & capitalism; anyone against capitalism is an idiot. He deserves what he got. His socialist followers continued on with his rhetoric, ignoring human rights of the individual & meritocracy.
larzkins 2 years ago
Indeed and I stand corrected. I should say that I recently watched the DVD documentary "Trotsky y Mexico: dos revolucionarios de XX Siglo", available at the Trotsky House - and with good English subtitles. It's an excellent documentary and I'm glad I purchased it there.
zzzptm 2 years ago
HW4RS PRESENTE!
whizbang47 2 years ago
imperialism and fascism are two sides of the same barbarian coin...
Long live great communism !!!
death to fascism and capitalistic corrupt system !!!
Down with revisionist traitor revisionist Trotsky !!!
Glory to Stalin, Mao and Che !!!
Long live Marxism and Leninism !!!
Death to fascist rats !!!
workergirls 2 years ago
How can anyone not love Trotsky? LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION.... LONG LIVE TROTSKY
MegaBolshevik 2 years ago 2
Because it was his idea to have commissars rule over the people instead of having a representative democracy. But Socialism would've never worked on the size and scale the Bolsheviks wanted, Trotsky knew this and conceded with the right wing of the party. You cannot force people into socialism, it has to be a voluntary revolution.
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
I see so the American Revolution was a "Voluntary Revolution", If it was not, than why do you want to force voluntarism on one revolution and not the other. Is asking for consistency too much to ask of you.?
franklikespolitics 2 years ago
I don't really understand your point. One can't force voluntarism; that's an obvious oxymoron. And where does the American revolution factor into what I'm saying?
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
How do you define revolution? is it a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" ? Or is it overthrow of a government by those it previously governed? Marxist socialism is overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and to replace it with social or workers ownership of the means of production. Only someone that is politocally naive would think that capitalist are going to give up the capitalist system voluntarly. How many voluntarly revolutions can you name?
franklikespolitics 2 years ago
I would say that if revolution is happening it is often indicative of peoples attitudes. Socialist revolution in Russia only lasted until 1917 - workers had no control from that point on and the USSR became a centralized autocratic hierarchy. It was a little different from other state-capitalist societies in terms of management, but by no means was it a socialist nation.
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
More libertarian societies have existed in Spain, Mexico, and Israel. Kibbutzim has been mostly privatized in Israel now, the Republicans lost the Spanish Civil War, but Chiapas is still protected by the Zapitistas.
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
What exactly do you stand for? I hear Libertarian a lot. Are you anti Marxism? And pro "Representative Democracy", as its alleged we have in the US. Does Noam Chomsky best reflect what you believe in?
franklikespolitics 2 years ago
Marx never lived to see the socialist experiment in Russia. So I've never found the use of the term Marxist to be appropriate when referring to the Soviet Union.
Do you understand that their are two strands of socialism? Statist and Libertarian. Obviously the difference is determined by the amount of direct democracy, as opposed to a representative one, or none at all. The libertarian movement has always been a workers movement. Libertarianism in the United States is repackaged fascism.
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago
Chomsky is an important figure, but hasn't contributed much to anarcho-syndicalist thought. Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin are closest to my views but I view their revolutionary rhetoric as indicative of the plight of the industrial era.
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago
I would agree that Libertarianism in the US is repackaged fascism. I would like to ask you a question, to see how we differ in the answer. What objective condition, if any had to exist before slavery could exist? Specifically chattel slavery.
franklikespolitics 1 year ago
That's a very good question. (Using your country as an example) I obviously would say that racial indifference was a major subjective condition for why chattel slavery lasted for so long in America, but economic disparity in the South obviously was the major objective condition. Civil change almost always relies on both a good economic environment and unified social structure.
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago
I like your answer but I meant, when slavery first arose or for example in Greek and Roman times, what if any objective condition had to exist before a slave owning economy could exist?
franklikespolitics 1 year ago
There are numerous reasons, but the ability for people to organize and share ideas was the major condition in my mind. You and I can both read and write, we can share ideas and voice our dissent from thousands of miles away, and there's nothing that can legally be done about it. From the perspective of slaves in an ancient society, affecting societal change was impossible without the right subjective conditions.
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago
Humanity has always been a hierarchical species, but the major condition for that is that knowledge and experience have been limited to few people, and thus opportunity. Women in western society would be a perfect example of this. Until they became part of the workforce, they had no say in anything but "what's for dinner". Now they can do virtually everything men can do and it's only been a less then a hundred years since they weren't able to vote.
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago
bien Leo!!!!
mzambo666 2 years ago
In our memory his ideas will live on!
Don't forget this great man.
MrXreloded 2 years ago 7
So cool. I want to visit that museum some time. Trotsky was an amazing man.
InsertNameHereN0w 2 years ago 8
This video is delicious, just like Trotsky!
jackriter 2 years ago
This is exciting to watch. Now the red revolution is sweeping Latin America. All Americans who want to be ready to sweep capitalism away, must join local neighborhood groups, like Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, ANSWER, & study groups to understand the need for socialism. Our hour is near. We must stop the Obama war machine to put all the troops out of Afghanistan.
Stop all wars. People need jobs, bread, women's liberation & solar houses, not war. Study Trotsky & Marks.
paul8kangas 2 years ago
Very cool video, but how did you find out Kahlo and Rivera became friendly with Stalin? I can not find that information. Thanks.
lgkdancing507 3 years ago
Two sources:
1. In the Frida Kahlo Museum, there are two portraits of Stalin, painted by Kahlo. Both are from her later life, and they show Stalin in a very positive light. Also, over her deathbead, are portraits of Marx, Engels, Stalin, and Mao.
2. Rivera went to Russia for cancer treatment in the early 50's. That was possible only if one was on good terms with Uncle Joe.
zzzptm 3 years ago
Although I'm not a Trotskyist by any stretch of the imagination, I wouldn't mind visiting this museum.
PsychoPunk1965 3 years ago
One needn't be a Trotskyite to enjoy the historical significance of the place. It's beautifully maintained and quiet enough to allow one opportunity to reflect on what happened in and around the place.
zzzptm 3 years ago
Your lucky you were able to visit. I consider Trotsky a martyr to the revolution, and would have an amazing experience if i could have gone. Is the museum in a dangerous neighborhood?
amsterdam78 3 years ago
No, Its a suburb.
CarlClausewitz 3 years ago
It's in Coyoacan, just a few blocks north of Frida Kahlo's house, which is now an excellent little museum. It's a great day trip in Mexico City. If you take the subway there, be sure to do it outside of peak user times, say between 10:30 and 2:30.
zzzptm 3 years ago
The museum is in a pretty and safe zone.
elmarciano 3 years ago
well, the revolutionary government actually denounced Trotsky as a 'revisionist' because of his opposition to Stalin
irishtrotskyist 3 years ago
I think you missed the nuance of my comment... he had to leave for health reasons because Stalin wanted him dead. The members of Trotsky's family still in Russia were murdered. He escaped with his wife and grandson: his grandson, by the way, runs the museum in Mexico.
zzzptm 3 years ago
No, Trotsky was grabbed by agents and dragged to a train. He did not have to leave nor did he want too. There was NO "escape" from Russia.
CarlClausewitz 3 years ago
Trotsky did not want to leave Russia he was forcibly exiled.
CarlClausewitz 3 years ago