Why did Trotsky lose to Stalin?

>>1588798
He was a former Menshivik while Stalin was always a Bolshevik. Ergo people were more willing to believe that Stalin was more genuine in his pursuit of the revolution while Lenin was a mere poser.

>>1588798
Trotsky had been anti-Bolshevik from the inception of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP to the middle of 1917 when, seeing the successes of the Bolsheviks, he decided to join them. He was criticised under Lenin a number of times, but it was when Lenin was dying that Trotsky began angling to be his successor and reviving his pre-1917 positions.The Trotskyists refused to adhere to democratic centralism and were gradually defeated through 1924-1928.

File: A very Handsome rogue.jpg (65KB, 446x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 446x600px

>>1588798
Because Stalin was willing to stop at absolutely nothing to get to the top

Trotsky was probably the more "intelligent" of the two, but is it better to be smart or ambitious?

>>1588938
>is it better to be smart or ambitious?
In Russia?
Both will get you murdered.
It's better to be exceedingly careful and to make sure you always have a plan. Stalin was very good at this.

>>1588938
Teotsky, intelligent? He was an utter dumbass. He fucked up most of the things he touched including losing to FUCKING POLAND when he commanded the Red army. The fact the Bolsheviks didn't keel over and lose to Whites as well is a testament to how disorganized and horrible the Whites were.

>>1588798
Stalin was seen as the moderate one

Didn't he build a loyal network around himself since he was in charge of appointing party members to their jobs?

literally jewishness

>>1588798
Nobody liked Trotsky. It wasn't so much Trotsky vs. Stalin, but a Trotsky vs. everyone else in the party. His ideas were completely unrealistic, he wanted a more hawkish foreign policy, aiming to spread the revolution, and to abolish the Soviet state, doing everything through local workers committees instead of having a bureaucracy.

Imagine if Stalin had the IQ of 90

That's Trotsky

>>1588938
>is it better to be smart or ambitious?
you should axe Trotsky

Because his skull was confused for a mountain by an alpinist named Ramón Mercader.

>>1588798
Because Trotsky's a little bitch

>>1589013
He killed 60 million people.

>>1588798
Because he ducked Frida Khalo and that bitches coter was a death sentence.

Trotsky was possibly the dumbest Jew ever.

No friends and Stalin fully utilized theadvantages of being general secretary.

>>1589675
That anon was right. Stalin was careful not to pick one side and stick with it like Trotsky did. He was very smart with how he turned people in the party against each other and made himself look like the neutral guy. He used Trotsky's position in the military to compare him to Napoleon, saying he wanted to do a coup d'etat and this made Leon lose popularity

His willingness to do paper work gave him high position and power in who to let in the party and who to take out.

I don't remember too well since I learned this in school years ago but I think that's how it went. And obviously back then Stalin didn't murder a single person

>>1589675
lol
15 billion actually

>>1591586
Not true, Stalin killed 500 trillion people

Because Lenin died before he could hand the keys over to Trotsky.

>>1591593
Are you actually retarded? The current estimate stands at 45 gazillion.

Stalin was a ruthless motherfucker and very good at scaring people while simultaneously covering his own ass. That's how.

>>1589675
But at least he didn't try to continue the communist world revolution, which was Trotsky's main ambition.

File: 1444788144163.gif (475KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 499x374px

>>1588798
everyone in this thread is wrong

stalin 'won' because he was general secretary of the party

he had a wealth of information/more influence and he knew how to use it

he was unironically a male joan holloway

File: 1378101605101.jpg (123KB, 501x566px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 501x566px

That's the thing all of these "intellectuals" pushing "ideal" communism don't get. If you centralize power that much in government, the biggest, baddest, most ruthless and conniving motherfucker, will always win and get the reins. And then instead of multiple big corporate entities vying for power and diving corruption, you get one guy with everything and all. It's the ultimate conclusion and why "true communism is never tried." It's not possible. It's inharmonious with human nature.

>>1593909
go buy more BIG BLACK SLAVES to pick cotton because it's cheaper then hiring white men you capitalist cuck

>>1593909
I just want to decentralize capital man. I have no desire for a USSR style Bolshevik state.

>>1591843
No that's the number of Jews that died in the holocaust

>>1593916

>Decentralize capital

and how

>>1593939
>Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.
>The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there.
>But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.
Needs to happens some time before the capitalists learn how to make unhackable robots with encryption that would take a million years to break, making them actually completely able to defend their property even if no one was on their side.

>>1593919
no that's 0

>>1588978
Don't forget his terrific "neither war nor peace" policy during WWI.


>Trotsky was the leading advocate of the "neither war nor peace" policy and on 28 January 1918 announced that Soviet Russia considered the war over.

The result was that the Central Powers simply continued their offensives and overran huge swaths of Russian territory as the Russian army was in dissolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Faustschlag

Then there was also Trotsky autistic objection to socialism in one country because his brain refused to leave the fantasy world and accept that a world revolution was impossible at that time.

>>1591555
Yes he did. Stalin was ruthless to the prisoners of the White army and would purposely sink ships filled with prisoners. Also he brutally crushed revolts happening in Georgia at the time.

>>1588938
That's not Stalin in the pic. Stop beating the dead horse.