Robert Service on Trotsky 07/26/2010

[@tripp8833]

I love when the interviewer knows something about the topic! What a great episode.

[@revertinthemaking]

WHATEVER! The problem is there isn't an accurate accounting and view of Trotsky that is mainstream. There needs to be one before it is too late. Thank goodness the ICL-fi are professional revolutionaries who protect the documentation and the defense of the Russian Revolution and subsequent workers struggles around the world.

[@Bloxygames-c1g]

Wonderful lecture!... Always wanting to learn more on Trotsky in specific... Interesting to think and wonder if he took over instead of Stalin

[@danieldavidisson9906]

You learnt nothing here

[@russelltreadway]

I just finished listening and it was great!

[@ppazpppaz8618]

Try reading the world socialist website for an analysis of Robert Service.

[@ppazpppaz8618]

Here are some articles to start with The articles show a whole range of historians, etc opposing Service's book on Trotsky. www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/intr-n23.html www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/11/serv-n11.html European historians oppose publication by Suhrkamp of Robert Service’s Trotsky biography

[@JohnGeometresMaximos]

@@ppazpppaz8618 I have RS's book and I did a comparison of his work to the accusations and claims laid out in the links you posted. In the article titled: "In The Service of Historical Falsification: A Review of Robert Service's Trotsky" I found that the author David North was outright lying. Communism and islam are destructive.

[@ppazpppaz8618]

@@JohnGeometresMaximos 1. And the historians who oppose Service, I guess they are also lying? 2. Have you read North's pamphlet/book? 3. So tell me why communism is destructive ? 4. What is communism? 5. Tell me why capitalism is destructive? I believe you have a predetermined bias, but lets see what you post in regards my questions above.

[@JohnGeometresMaximos]

@@ppazpppaz8618 islam and communism are the ONLY two ideologies who (at the outset) define enemies, then legitimize and seek their destruction or subjugation. The communists had organizations like the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, Securitate, and Stasi/AfS. You tell us what was the purpose of all these organizations. You want me to tell you what Communism is? Is it because you don't know?

[@blairhakamies4132]

Well done. I think I will read the book.

[@SeattlePioneer]

If you have watched the movie "Dr Zhivago " you will recall Strenikov and his train. That is the image of Trotsky at the time of the revolution.

[@Johnconno]

Tom Courtney?

[@kh-hp5gi]

This was a very interesting lecture. Now I have to go buy the book. Damn!

[@NathanWHill]

12:24 Michael Parenti has an account of Hoover in the 20s, which would be helpful control on this rose tinted portrayal

[@anbessiemulate7664]

This unbelievable I thought he wasn't as bad as Stalin and Lenin. The good communist is a dead one.my country Ethiopia was victim of this ideology. Unlucky. The outcome was red terror, war, famine...

[@revertinthemaking]

Don't let your personal emotions get in the way of facts and history. That is called hate, and does not serve the truth well.

[@denisoko8494]

@@revertinthemaking You do not have a bit of an understanding of what Left/Right ideology is compared to those who survived it! Lenin, Mussolini, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Kim, etc., were radical collectivists who paved their vision for "happiness" objectives over literally hundreds of millions of dead bodies of innocent people. FIY My relatives and I are from the country Ukraine, which survived occupation by German Nazis, Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian Fascists, and Russian Commies and Nazis and Fascists were pure horror and evil; however, the Commies were even worse, any Commies, either Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,... or Putin! And now Ukraine defends itself from Russia and its dictator Putin, who are all-in-one KGB agents, communists, and fascists, precisely like that, i.e., the favorite Putin table book is written by the Russian philosopher-fascist-monarchist Ivan Ilyin, and last but not least, Commie Stalin is an idol for Putin!

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

@@denisoko8494 "literally hundreds of millions of bodies" comes from the black book of communism. Four of the authors withdrew their names from the book because the lead author was so insistent on arriving on the hundreds of millions of bodies that he was using bad calculations. For example the fascists who were killed in the war were added to the number. "Commie Stalin is an idol for Putin". An outright lie. Putin runs against communists in elections. Poor sources leads to poor conclusions.

[@charleswinokoor6023]

Interviewer needs to ask shorter, more succinct questions. Excellent dissertation overall. I’m listening to it for a second time.

[@Phantasia_Workshop]

Yeah, he interrupts a lot and sidetracks Service instead of just letting him speak

[@RonJohn63]

0:38 Why does the title say "07/26/2010" when the host says "June 22nd, 2010"?

[@Shapeguydude]

Timeline got fucked up

[@revertinthemaking]

So many inaccuracies and even outright lies. He "killed a lot of people"??!! "because they didn't fight well"!!?? It is such arrogant laziness that lies become truths. This "documentary account" can and should be torn apart.

[@AaronEdwards-vo2os]

please read Rogovin on the struggle of Trotsky and the left opposition against Stalin. Was There An Alternative at mehring books is a great start. it is part of a 7 volume series on the history of the struggle of the left opposition against Stalin.

[@209Richsta]

So his father was a successful peasant, and was able to rent land. Wouldn't that been considered a kulak under Soviet Russia

[@paulfaigl8329]

In his case it wouldn't matter. He was a Jew and hence protected by the international Jewry. See the composition of the 1st politbyro from that point. God bless.

[@denisoko8494]

His father wasn't Kulak, AKA as a well-developed farming family; he was like a landlord closer to a midsize agricultural business, and yes, for that reason, Trotsky and his father definitely comply with formal Commie's definition of "enemy of the people." By the way, Lenin was from a low-ranking noble family and was formally the "enemy of the people," too. Stalin attended a Christian seminary to be a priest... All Commie dictators, by bloody deeds, are formally and practically "enemies of the people." It was and is the Commie hypocrisy when all others are executed for their nobles, bourgeois, or cleric roots, but not Commie leaders!

[@NathanWHill]

26:47 the Czar was too soft on crime? Come on Russ. The Soviets were very soft in the early days and it was only in the Civil War that they changed to terror as a technique.

[@jthunders]

They had soros DAs 💯 years ago?

[@denisoko8494]

Both assumptions are wrong; the tsar had the nickname Bloody for the reason that just one example, one year before his own execution in 1918, Nicholas II was responsible for murdering 500,000 native civilians in Central Asia colonies; I would n't call it "soft." Russian Social-Democrats(/Bolsheviks/Commies) were terrorists from the beginning, years before 1917; moreover, Russian Social-Democrats Martov created the theory of Terrorism, and those like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin implemented it practically years before the "revolution" and when Commies took power as a result of the coup in 1917, it was called The Great October Revolution later, they 100% followed own theory in part of the Dictatorship of the Proletaria (Karl Marx) and Red Terror(Yulius Martov).

[@NathanWHill]

@@denisoko8494 Well, Russian Social democrats were explicitly critical of Narodnaya Volya's commitment to terrorism and equally critical of Blanquism. So, while I have no truck per se with you characterising them as terrorist or as staging a coup, it would be incumbant on someone holding your position to characterize how the terrorism they rejected was different than the terroism they practiced and how the coups they rejected were different from the coups the practiced. (There is an extensive literature now on Marx and 'dictatorship of the proletariat' a term he used rarely and only when talking to French people and that must also be understood as referring to 'dictatorship' in the Roman law / early 19th century sense. But how Russian social democracts understood the term is another question, of course.)

[@denisoko8494]

@@NathanWHill The term "coup"/ "переворот" isn't my classification. Still, it was explicitly used by Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Bolshevik + Menshevik) leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, Bucharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc., when they printed articles in leftist newspapers to describe and reason their action in overthrowing the democratically elected government in 1917. BTW, Russian Social Democrats participated in that election and won a noticeable % of the votes. The term "dictatorship" for Russians has nothing to do with classic Roman Empire dictators and their reign; however, it was more of an absolute despot rule in ancient Asian empires; hence, the Russian vision of dictatorship was closer to a fiefdom where the warlord doesn't break the state law but enforces the law by own lawlessness. Russian vision of Terror is an approach to suppress the population to absolute obedience by violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims, so Lenin and Trotsky murdered thousands of non-combatants (civilians) in mass in St Petersburg on daily basis in 1917; however, later, after Lenin's assassination attempt, the Red Terror became just a refined, unified, methodologically thought through, and scaled up and out version of earlier Terror leftists committed in 1917. The Great Terror in 1937-1938 is an advanced version of the Red Terror from 1918-1920. BTW, the Russian White Terror is not better than their Red Terror. 1905(Lenin adopted from SR and implemented the slogan "mass terror"), 1917, 1918-1920, and 1937-1938 are the most noticeable periods in the Russian Terrorism evolution.

[@NathanWHill]

46:59 I thought all one party states were meticulous in keeping the government and party separate. The Chinese certainly are.

[@jaybobdoodles]

This host is a dork. Stop interrupting, and I feel like saying “that we know of” to a history figure is kind of a slap in the face.

[@VladimirLukovRussianHistory]

Он верил в революцию руками Среднего Класса и Нобелей, чтобы создать общество с 'миллионами Шекспиров"?! Как в опере "Jesus Christ Superstar". А ему Иуда говорил "не надо": делать, как твой отец, стулья из дерева, послужило бы лучше миру, чем твой героизм... Вот суть трагедии Троцкого. И всех его стронников.

[@javierborda8684]

I'm half way but I wonder if these mainstream historians ever talk about where the money for these crimes came from?

[@AgendaFiles]

There was no money from the sources you are alluding too. The wealth from outside of Russia came in support of the February Revolution of 1917, not October. Lenin was funded to destabilize Russia by the Germans who allowed him to return back into Russia. The outside money came to support the general population of February that resulted in the Provisional Government being established. It was the October Revolution that then acquired the power from the Provisional Government that the few wealthy had initially supported.

[@javierborda8684]

@@AgendaFiles Rubbish. Trotsky was sent after February from NY and was caught in Halifax with $10,000. Then they let him continue his journey to Russia. The whole revolution was absolutely financed by banking interests, are you kidding me? Also Lenin defaulted on Russia’s considerable debt (greatest default in History at the time) and nothing happened to them except some indignant statements. They got away with it, no problem at all! They were free to pillage and murder and were aided for it from way before the very beginning. Jacob Schiff did his part at least as early as 1905.

[@AgendaFiles]

@@javierborda8684 You keep speaking as if there was only one revolution in Russia. There was two, one in February and one later in October. February was started by the women. The October Revolution had money interests from the Germans who allowed Lenin to return. He was funded through Georg Sklarz, Alexander Parvus and Furstenberg. There was no "greatest default in history" through Lenin. Even a search in the market histories on Google does not show Russia after 1917 in the top 10 for defaults. Schiff never supported the Bolsheviks. Its why after the Provisional Government (following February) which he did support, came to an end with October and Lenin. Lenin did not even like Trotsky, as Trotsky in 1903 was originally a Menshevik who wrote against Lenin and the Bolsheviks. There is no creditable evidence for these claims of $10,000 under Miliukov. All you have is fringe conspiracy authors such as Antony Sutton, who was kicked out of Stanford University for his dogmatic paranoia.

[@javierborda8684]

@@AgendaFiles Sutton shows how the total impossibility of economic viability of a communist regime was made possible by collusion with the west. What’s the meaning of Sutton being kicked out of Stanford? Who cares? Sutton is truly magnificent author. Notice I said greatest default at the time. Read Bolsheviks and Bankers. Trotsky was pretty quick to become a Bolshevik as soon as he saw it convenient to become one. Like many many others.

[@AgendaFiles]

@@javierborda8684 Sutton pieces together any information to create a conspiracy narrative. As you have mentioned, because there existed international trade with the United States and the Soviet Union, that according to Sutton's "thinking" is evidence of a conspiracy. As if trade is abnormal between two or more nations. The Soviets following the Great Famine of 1921, as under the New Economy Policy (NEP) required to industrialize the nation and ended up purchasing such materials from places as in the U.S./Canada, how is this evidence or a motive of a secret conspiracy according to Sutton? Sutton merely associates such conditions, as including Stalinism with the West, and therefore guilt-by-association logical fallacy = the West is to blame for all of Stalin's actions. It's retarded and shows why Stanford were quick to disassociate themselves with such a lunatic-fringe author. The Bolsheviks did not need money from any bankers (outside their original funds received by the Germans allowing Lenin's 1917 return to Russia). Their wealth came from looting the Tsars property. Even today some of their most valuable items are still missing.

[@javierborda8684]

Censorship never worked. In fact, Tsarism died in great part because of the degree to which it was a victim of outrageous calumnies promoted by the press on an international level.

[@tripp8833]

It certainly worked for the Soviets ; kept their people enslaved for 70 years

[@javierborda8684]

tripp absolutely, I meant it never worked for the Tsars.

[@AgendaFiles]

"it was a victim of outrageous calumnies promoted by the press on an international level." What does this even mean? The Tsarist regime was on its way out before WW1 by their own behaviour against the needs of the people while taking their land before the uprising that led to the protesters being killed which caused the Russian Revolution of 1905: that forced the Tsar to create the Duma and then provide an open press which led to further popular outrage following Tsar Nicholas II's entering of WW1 which due to food shortages resulted in the February Revolution of 1917 before the Provisional Government was established and Tsar Nicholas II abdicating. There was no "outrageous calumnies promoted by the press on an international level." At the time Russia internationally was well-received: they had just finished supporting Lincoln in the United States with their Civil War; while the wealth of Europe businesses were investing in Russia that pushed the rural population to move closer into the cities to work. They were then overworked and underpaid, while this all then led to the 1905 revolution.

[@javierborda8684]

@@AgendaFiles Russia had a tremendous problem with terrorists, revolutionaries and agitators from way before the revolution. Russia was financially well received only in France. British Empire was always very worried about Russia and the US press was also very critical. By the time of the war against Japan in 1905 very strong financial US interests played openly against Russia by financing Japan’s army and development. Never mind Germany. This idea of spontaneous popular uprisings is flawed in most cases. Russia was taken down by very powerful interests, not by its people. The overwhelming majority of the population were faithful orthodox Christians who loved the Tsar and the role of financed propaganda and the press cannot be underestimated.

[@AgendaFiles]

@@javierborda8684 >"Russia had a tremendous problem with terrorists, revolutionaries and agitators from way before the revolution." I know, such as the social revolutionaries who believed only through violence could bring about change, as in the Narodniks where Lenin's older brother was influenced by and would later be killed in 1887 for his attempts at overthrowing the Tsarist regime. The people had been dispossessed by the Tsars, while having had their land taken from them and forced into the cities working for no pay started their protests in 1905 which resulted in the military killing those to start the 1905 Revolution. Along with censorship. Why would the poor population, allegedly had "...loved the Tsar and the role of financed propaganda and the press cannot be underestimated." Schiff's influence was against the mistreatment of Jews under the Russian Empire, it came out of the pogroms such as the 1903 Kishinev massacre where many Jews had been killed. It took the 1905 revolution for the Duma and a free press to be created. During the October Revolution, it was "Bread, Peace and Land" the people were against at the Tsarist regime.

[@foraustralia2558]

I think Kerensky was the first director of the Hoover Institution !! Also need to correct the record... the Civil War was against the Social Democrats....who always fought the Communist... ( shame the democratic right wingers in Germany NEVER showed this level of principle in1933 ) Also it should alway be remembered that it was a Social Democrat that shot Lenin

[@absolute-altitude134]

Very close ! According to the article "Revolution Comes to Stanford" by Bertrand M. Patenaude: "By 1965, Kerensky had been at Stanford for much of the previous decade. In his first years on the Farm, he occupied a cubicle in Hoover Tower, where he researched a multivolume documentary study of the Provisional Government, based on materials from the Hoover Library & Archives. In subsequent years, he gave talks at Rinconada, Tresidder, Cubberley, and the Women’s Clubhouse in the Old Union, wrote numerous letters to the editor of the Stanford Daily, taught seminars in history and international relations, frequented the Oasis, and, according to a credible witness, demonstrated the Watusi at a party at Kingscote Gardens. In November 1965, at the moment when the former prime minister of Russia was briefly in the lead in the race for “Red Hot Prof,” he told a reporter from the Daily that he felt “very honored” to be in the running and that, should he win, he would be ready to lead a cheer or two."

[@Ashley-1917]

The civil war was fought against the various anti-revolutionary socialist parties, but also mainly against the whites under the anti-socialist generals (Denikin in the south and Kolchak in the north in the Urals)

[@papaluskask999]

Logic is that Fascism was reaction to communism, so what was communism a reaction to?

[@atroticious]

to capitalism

[@irenemax3574]

I agree with Droosy1 1 that Communism was a reaction to capitalism.

[@renatosilva5304]

Fascism was not a "reaction" to communism. Mussolini was a communist of note and editor of the communist party newspaper. Hitler stole the thunder and popularity of the socialist movement in Germany and turned it into ultra nationalist socialism. Mussolini envisioned a return to the past glory of Rome and Hitler the austro-Hungarian empire with a racial supremacist element. Hitler only invaded Russia and tried to destroy Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky because Russia supported the revolution in Germany because if it didn`t go internationalist, it was doomed to be a target of western capitalist nations to kill revolutionary movements bound on the dismantling of capitalist exploitation of the working class. It was widely understood that the true revolution in Europe was to take place in the most advanced and industrialized nation which was Germany at the time. Both Italy and Germany were capitalist countries under fascist rule and with some support from the western economic elites. So the west made aliance with Stalin to fight Hitler`s nazi Germany then later, turned on Russia and the USSR not because it was "communist", it wasn`t, it was over markets and expansion. Ideology was just propaganda on both sides.

[@SagesseNoir]

@@renatosilva5304 Mussolini was NOT a Communist, but was once a member of the Italian Socialist Party. When Hitler invaded Russia Lenin was dead and Trotsky exiled by Stalin thousands of miles from Russia. Hitler therefore could not have invaded Russia to destroy "Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin.' For Stalin was the only one left in Russia, and Stalin had wiped out all of the original leaders of the Bolshevik revolution. Also, Hitler himself stated that he intended to enslave the Slavic peoples of the east, and that Russia would be taken over by the "Aryan" master race of Germany. Slaves would be allowed to exist so long as they were useful as slaves. That was the main reason Hitler invaded Russia

[@light1908]

Maybe one day corporatism will stop being called capitalism.

[@javierborda8684]

The myth of gentler Lenin and Trotsky against Stalin. If Satan had a trinity that would be it.

[@chairmanbunker4418]

They were based as fuck.

[@SagesseNoir]

Almost everybody was gentler than Stalin, but that's not saying very much.

[@209Richsta]

Lol despite the fact that up to 5 million people died under Lenin. Not to mention man made famines by taking all the grain and livestock. That was Soviet Union's first attempt collectivization.

[@paulfaigl8329]

Spot on.💥

[@stephenhammel4168]

One could argue that the one we’ve had and the millions of people who have been murdered, etc in the name of this trinity, hmm, has done quite nicely to fill that definition thank you very much.

[@NathanWHill]

1:20:15 Same attitude that George W. Bush also had.

[@FF-so3su]

Exc

[@johnlandau7111]

Trotsky was not a proletarian and neither were the other major Marxist leaders. He was from an upper middle class family, as were the majority of the Marxist leaders. After they seized power in 1917-18, they did not allow any manual laborers to exercise any power. The soviets or workers councils were reduced to a merely ceremonial role. Contested elections were banned in the soviets and all other legislative bodies. The communist leaders led etremely comfortable lives, with all their needs, including free medical care, provided for by the state, while the worrkers and peasants starved and died in epidemics. I think the true objectives of the revolutionary leaders was power for themselves, not the “proletariat..” And their own standard of living proved to be far more important to them than that of the “masses."

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

So, just like the west today?

[@robleahy5759]

True of Mao, a bourgeois librarian, Pol Pot sent to a Parisian academy, Che, Castro and all their latter day epigones. Real workers of all classes insulate themselves from resentment or envy in order to add value to their own lives and the lives of those they care about.

[@leezaslofsky4438]

Stalin's father was a cobbler afflicted with alcoholism. His family were poor. Voroshilov also came from a poor family. Kaganovich was a cobbler by trade and sometimes asked visitors to take off a boot so he could look at the workmanship. The idea that there can be no real alliance between intellectuals and the working class is pure nonsense, a cheap debating point. The Bolshevik leaders were men who had renounced their privileges and had dedicated themselves to the Revolution. Most of them spent long years in exile, often in remote parts of Siberia, in prison, in poverty, in constant danger of arrest. There have been similar organizations over the centuries. Many were religious orders that worked to spread their views, often by violence or in cooperation with State violence. Other organizations, like the Mafia, are similar to the Bolsheviks in many ways. Most countries maintain spy organizations or networks that are similar in many ways to the Bolsheviks.

[@r.w.bottorff7735]

Dinnerwithfranklin...yes, unfortunately they have a lot in common. Here in the west you are most likely to encounter a revolutionary at the dinner table, by dessert they are liberal, and all tuckered out for night night.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

@@r.w.bottorff7735 Lol, well said.

[@NathanWHill]

36:23 they let Karensky go and he moved to America. They didn't even kill the Czar for ages

[@absolute-altitude134]

Hi Nathan, I would actually like to add some detail to your first statement, because I find it interesting! At the time of the attempted arrest of Kerensky he had already undertaken military action (albeit unsuccessfully) against the Bolshevik government, which very probably meant execution - in fact Kerensky had already determined to commit suicide rather than be captured. After Kerensky’s escape, NOT in a woman’s dress but, in his own words (& verified by other accounts), “a rather ridiculous-looking sailor: the sleeves of the jacket were too short, and my brown shoes did not at all harmonize with the windings, the sailor’s hat was too small and stuck out on the top of my head. The disguise ended with bulging car glasses [Any errors in translation are mine]”, he went into hiding. Despite his efforts & intentions, he remained politically isolated and essentially ineffective. Again disguised with, according to Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin, a beard, long hair, and "thick blue spectacles," he continued to evade arrest by the Bolshevik authorities. The fact that Kerensky had not been forgotten by the Bolsheviks is evidenced by Trotsky’s description of him after, in May 1918, Kerensky left Russia to solicit material and diplomatic aid for the Union from the West: "one of the chief agents-provocateurs working on behalf of foreign Imperialism." Although Kerensky’s efforts were unsuccessful, and back in Russia his friends and family were harshly persecuted (undoubtedly the actions of a Terror State), he continued political activity. Then, while Kerensky was in Paris, Lenin sent a Cheka agent to assassinate him (this can be compared to Stalin sending agents to assassinate political enemies, for example Trotsky) - which was obviously unsuccessful, as the would-be assassin couldn’t bring himself to carry out the deed, settling for stealing Kerensky’s papers. In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that Kerensky would have been executed shortly after Gatchina - and if not then, definitely during the Red Terror (which laid the path for Stalin’s purges etc.), or if he had been discovered and/or arrested at any point while he was still in Russia. Not a critique of your comment, just thought it’d be interesting to know! Cheers. :)

[@michaeljohns8817]

THE MOVIE REDS IS OK

[@badgeramaya1841]

The biggest murderer of are time