4 ms·

The fact that you refer to him as a mass murdered shows he wasn't exactly canonized. I also don't see how you read the quote as a justification unless all you f

• aaron-lebo 8y ago
  He had very strong views about revolution. He believed it was necessary and desirable at all costs (hence his actions). He's lauding the role of the violent revolutionary without further reflection (because he'd already made his choice long ago) whether actions that generated waves of murder and generations of tyrants as a result were actually desirable. I'd argue that results of his violence are a great argument against much of what he sad because he obviously didn't know how to control it or didn't care. As an example, he didn't want Stalin to come to power, but he was powerless to stop the bloodshed he'd put into motion and people suffered horrendously because of it. Sounds like a short-sighted and evil person.
  • anigbrowl 8y ago
    As an example, he didn't want Stalin to come to power, but he was powerless to stop the bloodshed he'd put into motion A series of debilitating strokes reduced Lenin to the status of an invalid, and Trotsky naively took Stalin's good faith for granted and avoided attacking him publicly despite Lenin's request for him to denounce Stalin's political opportunism. Omitting major causal factors doesn't say much for the quality of your argument.
    • aaron-lebo 8y ago
      Yes, a stroke was part of "not having control". The foolishness of violence is assuming you can put it back in the bottle. That's part of the argument.
      • anigbrowl 8y ago
        Bullshit.