Talk:Bloc of Soviet Oppositions

Removed a paragraph

The article contained the following: "Differing from Broué's conclusion, former soviet politician Jules Humbert-Droz claimed in his memoirs that Bukharin had formed a bloc with Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1929 and they were planning to use individual terror to remove Stalin from power." The relevant excerpt of Droz's memoir is online. It only speaks of Bukharin claiming his followers had established contact "with the Zinoviev-Kamenev fraction in order to coordinate the struggle against the power of Stalin," not that an actual bloc was formed between them or that they had all agreed to individual terror as a means of removing Stalin. Furthermore, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the bloc mentioned in this article. Hence why I removed it. --Ismail (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What? The link that you posted... it outright confirms that they agreed on using individual terror accordind to Droz. Here is a literal phrase from your source: "Bukharin also told me that they had decided to use individual terror to get rid of Stalin."

Also from your source, Droz said it was a bloc: "This bloc is a bloc without principles which will crumble away before achieving any results."

Now the question of what this has to do with this bloc really is another matter. This maybe belongs in Bukharin's page. Seekallknowledge (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiratorial bloc" - Stalinist POV

This article looks like there is as lot of Stalinist POV, original research, misrepresentation of sources and a distortion of history.

The objectionable term "conspiratorial bloc" is used repeatedly here and in references to this article elsewhere which led me here. This is not neutral or unbiased historical language at all. It's the same hostile language used by Soviet police and courts during the Great Terror of 1937-38 where defendants were tortured to provide false confessions, and the language seems intended as fringe historical revisionism to legitimize Stalin's mass killings of dissidents and minorities during that period.

A Trotsky quote is included as apparent "proof" of the POV, but this quote does not even say a bloc was formed, only that a proposal was heard for one, and it says conspiracy is needed to fight repression. This is stretched to fit the propaganda of the Stalin period about a vast terroristic "conspiratorial bloc" which needed to be violently purged in the USSR.

Stalinist editors might insist that the wording is technically correct, as any dissidents operating in secret are a "conspiracy" - so one could also argue that Sophie Scholl and the White Rose were a "conspiratorial bloc". Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters in Myanmar against the military junta could be called a "conspiratorial bloc". Any progressive, socialist or democratic activist who ever organized resistance against an oppressive regime could be called the leader of a "conspiratorial bloc". To call them by this term, repeatedly and insistently, would however be insulting and smack of apologia for any oppressive regime that persecuted its "conspirators". It is not consistent with general practice on Wikipedia to slander political dissidents in this way.

The article also ends with an insinuation that Trotsky's letters were pruned to hide evidence of his dark conspiracies, which probably comes from extreme pro-Stalin historical revisionist authors like Grover Furr. Trotsky's archive was actually broken into, looted and burned by Soviet intelligence agents while in France and that is the cause of many missing documents.

This article needs to be removed or edited, preferably by an expert, to have unbiased language throughout. Famisht (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, this article should be thoroughly rewritten to fit what actually happened and not only a Marxist propagandist view on history - or better yet, deleted. I find it abhorrent that some would attempt to sell the lies used during the show trials of 1937 as evident truth. The existence of this article and the way it is worded could not be further away from what Wikipedia is supposed to be about: open access to unbiased truth based on reputable sources. This is open access, yes, but only to biased lies told by unreputable sources. How could somebody even attempt to lay a claim on fact and truth while only using sources found on marxist.org, an openly ideological and propagandist site created with the purpose of selling the idea of marxism to a wide audience.

tl;dr: This article should be deleted and it is a shame for all Wikipedia that it continues to exist at all. CableCableCable (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Marxists.org is a internet archive for all Marxist related things. While i agree it shows bias to use that site, it was used because only that site contains the original text as far as i know because it is hard to find articles and books dating back to the 1980's and the language gap due to Broué being a French historian.

As for propaganda: I think this article can best be rephrased to get the point while there probably was a bloc for a short time, it was exaggrated by Stalin. The best way to show that this was true and that the moscow trial were show trials is that the moscow trial evidence didn't use these articles and relied on confessions through torture. CamelUSSR (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanquism#Vladimir_Lenin

I'd just like to add that we use the Marxist internet archive for other articles on this site as well as a scource. CamelUSSR (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my other comment, the Moscow Show Trials accused the Bloc of collaborating with Nazi Germany and having a terrorist policy. nothing in this article alleges anything like that. Because it is only covering the real bloc which had all of their policies distorted by the stalinist dictadorship.

And the article on marxists.org was written by the french professional historian, teacher, anti-stalinist and trotskyist Pierre Broué. It is indeed reliable. The source might seem biased, but even marxists.org is against Stalin. They describe Trotsky in a positive light saying he "Helped create the Left Opposition to overthrow Stalin and stop the monstrous attrocities he'd soon commit". And, as CamelUSSR pointed out, marxists.org is used as a source in the rest of the site, if it has relevant historical texts.

That being said, I don't see how the article can be seen as pro-stalinist. It is not perfect, sure. But our job is to improve it, show that the stalinists lied about the organization it refers to, and spread information about this interesting bit of soviet history. Seekallknowledge (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s an apt

description given Trotsky self described his methods as conspiracy in one of his letters to Sedov 92.40.217.210 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

" Stalinist editors might insist that the wording is technically correct, as any dissidents operating in secret are a "conspiracy" - so one could also argue that Sophie Scholl and the White Rose were a "conspiratorial bloc"."

”As far as the illegal organisation of the Bolshevik-Leninists in the USSR is concerned, only the FIRST STEPS have been taken towards its re-organisation.” CamelUSSR (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A letter from Sedov to Trotsky states:

“The [bloc] is organised it includes the Zinovievists, the Sten–Lominadze Group and the Trotskyists (former “[capitulators]”). The Safar–Tarkhan Group… will enter very soon.” (Document No. 3, Letter from Sedov to Trotsky, Library of Harvard College 4782) CamelUSSR (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I created this article, and while it is true that is has some problems, I believe you are exaggerating a bit.

About the use of the term "conspiratorial"

It was, without a doubt, conspiratorial. Altough putting this in lead... is certainly questionable and unnecessary. As you pointed out, any organization like this, that is, that fights against a dictadorship, can be considered "conspiratorial". Which is why I believe that it will be better if I remove the part "...as a conspiratorial bloc...". I will edit it out pretty soon.

About the existance of the Bloc

According to the article written by professional historian, trotskyist, and anti-stalinist Pierre Broué, the Bloc indeed existed for a while. Here is what he wrote in the beginning of the article: "They confirmed the existence in the USSR in 1932 of a “bloc” of the Oppositions against Stalin. It was a substantial discovery though it does not for a moment justify the old Stalinist thesis that there was a “terrorist” bloc."

About the acusation of Stalinist propaganda

The stalinist version claims that a Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites was formed in 1932, existed for many years, commited terrorist acts and collaborated with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

The historian Pierre Broué found out that only the first accusation is true, for a bloc was formed in 1932. Broué, and this wikipedia article, point out that the stalinists lied about terrorism, collaboration with foreign powers and the bloc existing for many years, because in reality, the Bloc was a peaceful alliance and was dissolved in 1933!

Here is a fraction of this wikipedia article that shows that the stalinist accusations were lies:

"it was clear that it was based on this bloc, albeit exaggeratedly. Trotsky's letters did not contain any evidence of collaboration with foreign powers nor that Trotsky approved of a 'terrorist policy'. Broué concluded the bloc ceased to exist by early 1933"

Maybe, in the lead, it should also be pointed out that the accusations in the Moscow Trials were lies. This would make this article better at fighting stalinist misinformation.

About the missing items of the archive

Pierre Broué says some documents were destroyed, and Arch Getty says some were removed. The last passage does not imply that Trotsky himself purged the archive, nor anybody else. Maybe it could be re-worded to make it more obvious that there is no evidence that Trotsky purged his archive? Maybe I will do it later. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)