Trotsky's objection and non-Czarist Russia: My questions

[Dionysii]

As a moderator I ask you to adress hierarchs with their proper titles.  Ignoring this request will result in official warning.

Sorry about that.  Will do.

I noted your fix to an earlier post and bore that in mind when discussing Arbishop Khrapovitsky.  I think you will note above that I did include attempt an abbreviation of Archimnadrite David's title.  I had so much to say about Patriarch Tikhon, I forgot and slacked on form.  No disrespect intended. My mistake.

EDIT:
When I saw the initial fix, I thought what a nice forum that has that. 
One does not encounter that sophistication of manners often enough these days.

[Dionysii]

In hindsight (for me as a former Trotskist) his central error is the one you pointed out, his Atheism. This blinded him and led him into all kinds errors simply because Atheism is untrue.

Speaking of atheism, check this out:

'New Myth, New World:  From Nietzsche to Stalinism'
By Bernice Rosenthal
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-02218-3.html

Bernice Rosenthal views Stalinist culture as Nietzschean which is the specific form of nineteenth century occultism adopted by the Soviet Union.
I have a history of occultism in nineteenth century Russia by this author.

'The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture'
By Bernice Rosenthal
http://www.amazon.com/Occult-Russian-Soviet-Culture/dp/080148331X

EDIT:
'No Religion Higher than Truth' by Maria Carlson deserves mention because in this context because it is seemingly the only history of Russian theosophy and occultism in english which views this phenomenon negatively.

[Dionysii]

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman  
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 

[Dionysii]

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman  
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    

[Dionysii]

Antony Sutton's research demonstrating western financial support for Trotsky and the Soviet monstrosity he created demonstrate that he was a pawn of the west being used to destroy a good work in progress that.   Both Wall Street and the German High Command (who sent Lenin to Russia) were in on the destruction of Russian society.

'Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution'
By Antony Sutton
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution

Financial support of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin is comparable to the way that the west has financed Wahhabis like the Taliban, al Qaida, and the Saudi dynasty to the detriment of more benevolent forms of Islam such as Sufism.   I only mention Sufism here deliberately avoiding mention of political Islam to avoid heated political discussion.

In my opinion, Wahhabism is to Islam what protestant fundamentalism is to Orthodoxy.  The Suni religionism has the most colonial legacy within Islam analogous to the crusades and colonialism which sprang from the Frankist papal system.  

Shiism is analogous to Orthodoxy and strongest in places like Iran which have the highest concetration of Sufism which is the part of Islam most influenced by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The Zikr prayer of the Naqsibandis comes particulary close to imitating the Jesus Prayer.  The Sufi Tariqas are modeled on Eastern Christian brotherhoods, and the better Islamic histories themselves state that the history of Sufism is more ancient than Mohammed himself.

[Marc1152]

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman  
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 

Very interesting... Go to youtube and search on "Stalin Society" which is a British CP outfit that posts various apologies for Stalin. Pretty good stuff actually.

[Marc1152]

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman  
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.  I may get the bends trying to remember the details but the "Deformed Workers State" side won the day.

I think the central idea is that the Capitalist Class was fully destroyed and replaced. The Bureaucrats who then ran the economy do not constitute a "Class" but are a different animal. They are better characterized as a "Caste" (of bureaucrats) and not a "Class" that could pass down any sort of ownership to their heirs......... No Capitalist Class = No Capitalism   

[Dionysii]

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's. 

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war. 

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics. 

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems. 

[Marc1152]

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's.  

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war.  

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics.  

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems.  

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe. Especially bad was their coziness with North Korea. I knew some WWP folks who went there on an official Party to Party thingy. I personally found it quite distasteful.

From where I sit if you beleive North Korea is a fine example of Socialism, then something is a miss.  

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?

[Dionysii]

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?

The article I linked says that some of Solzhenitsyn's fellow prisoners were once planning a revolt and/or escape, and he secretly turned in their names along with minte details of the planned revolt.  They were executed based upon the information which he submitted.

[Dionysii]

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.

I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.

[recent convert]

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?

[Dionysii]

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?

I have encountered that same information about Solzhenitsyn from other sources as well.
However, I do think that Kavkazcenter.com is one of the best sources of critical information on Russia to be found on the internet.
Also, I did not say that Tikhon himself was a heretic.

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

The moderators have warned against political discussion probably for a good reason.
In the interests of avoiding political discussion, I will try to avoid getting into the fairly recent Russian Chechnyan wars since recent issues like that are more closely connected to heated political discussion. 

I think it is good for us to respect each other's God given freedom of will and the religious and political choices that others make that free will even if we happen to disagree.

[recent convert]

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

^^^
(Quote functoin is not working properly for me)

You are correct on this most valid point & I must apologize about that in the spirit of the thread. Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative & I will bow out of this thread.

[Dionysii]

Let me see ... Shiites seem to be cool.... is this some sort of psyop?

For what it's worth, Saint Methodios of Patara and Saint Kosmas of Aetolia have prophecied that the time of Ishmaelite power will end with their division into three parts.  One third will die.  Another third will convert to the Orthodox Church, and a final third will flee to the land of burnt face. 

iF one bothers to read the details of what I wrote about Shiites, I said that I reckon that the prevalence among them of Sufis might be a good thing since Sufism is perhaps more heavily influenced by the Orthodox Church than any other aspect of Islam.

Is your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?

[Marc1152]

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.

I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive. 

[recent convert]

Since I must respond to this quote (in # 60)

, your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?

My negative opinion of this religion is the same negative opinion I have towards a political ideology (also a religion) like communism. It is not directed towards the individuals within them (who are its adherents willingly or unwillingly. I believe in the mercy of God in knowing the heart of any individual no matter what belief system that individual belongs although the Christian has the greater advantage having the truth ( & probably more accountable) but not in personal disposition.

[Dionysii]

Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative

Peace be with you, brother.

[Dionysii]

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive.

You are spot on. 
I was making a generalization compared with the overall domestic experience that Russia had with the Soviet Union.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Trotsky's objection and non-Czarist Russia: My questions