I just noticed that the links you provided are the sources for your quotes (you just didn't specifically state that).
* [R]epression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.
Here is a more full quote for context:
Kautsky, in spite of all the happenings in the world to-day, completely fails to realize what war is in general, and the civil war in particular. He does not understand that every, or nearly every, sympathizer with Thiers in Paris was not merely an “opponent” of the Communards in ideas, but an agent and spy of Thiers, a ferocious enemy ready to shoot one in the back. The enemy must be made harmless, and in wartime this means that he must be destroyed.
The problem of revolution, as of war, consists in breaking the will of the foe, forcing him to capitulate and to accept the conditions of the conqueror. The will, of course, is a fact of the physical world, but in contradistinction to a meeting, a dispute, or a congress, the revolution carries out its object by means of the employment of material resources – though to a less degree than war. The bourgeoisie itself conquered power by means of revolts, and consolidated it by the civil war. In the peaceful period, it retains power by means of a system of repression. As long as class society, founded on the most deep-rooted antagonisms, continues to exist, repression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.
Source
I don't see what's wrong with this quote at all, and don't understand why you cited it as some kind of evidence that Trotsky is "as bad as Stalin" or whatever you're trying to prove. This was written in 1920, at the height of the Civil War, when such repression was a real necessity.
The American Civil War was fought for the purposes of repressing the secessionists and unifying the country. What do you think a Civil War is?
Now, I've addressed this quote first, as it is the only quote for which you have provided a legitimate source (MIA is the most authoritative online collection of Marxist works). The other source you've provided is some obscure site that was incredibly crudely made and which I am much less inclined to accept as a source.
* [E]even chattel slavery was productive ... Forced labor did not grow out of the feudal lords’ ill-will. It was a progressive [that is, a wave of the future] phenomena.
As for this, due to the source, I am not going to trust the paraphrasing of the author here in claiming that Trotsky was saying that chattel slavery was "a wave of the future". Nor could I find any information on the source that is cited. This simply does not fit in with anything he has ever said. I have found an
article that does state that Trotsky did make such a claim (that chattel slavery played a progressive role) at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions.
Based on the few minutes of searching that I put into this I can pretty much guarantee that Trotsky was claiming that historically chattel slavery played a progressive role, much in the same way that capitalism played a progressive role. It would be ridiculous to claim, though, that because they claimed this that they would also claim that it still plays a progressive role (in their time, or ours) or that they endorsed either.
We are for regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to socialism ... [O]bligation and, consequently, compulsion are essential conditions for overcoming bourgeois anarchy, securing socialization of the means of production and labor, and reconstructing economic life on the basis of a single plan.
This quote is from here:
History has known slave labor. History has known serf labor. History has known the regulated labor of the mediaeval craft guilds. Throughout the world there now prevails hired labor, which the yellow journalists of all countries oppose, as the highest possible form of liberty, to Soviet “s1avery.” We, on the other hand, oppose capitalist slavery by socially-regulated labor on the basis of an economic plan, obligatory for the whole people and consequently compulsory for each worker in the country. Without this we cannot even dream of a transition to Socialism. The element of material, physical, compulsion may be greater or less; that depends on many conditions – on the degree of wealth or poverty of the country, on the heritage of the past, on the general level of culture, on the condition of transport, on the administrative apparatus, etc., etc. But obligation, and, consequently, compulsion, are essential conditions in order to bind down the bourgeois anarchy, to secure socialization of the means of production and labor, and to reconstruct economic life on the basis of a single plan.
Source
Sounds dreadfully totalitarian, doesn't it? But wait, let's look a few paragraphs above this:
The very principle of compulsory labor service is for the Communist quite unquestionable. “He who works not, neither shall he eat.” And as all must eat, all are obliged to work.
I think this speaks for itself.
Last quote:
* Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands ... The State terror of a revolutionary class can be condemned ‘morally’ only by a man who, on principle, rejects (in words) every form of violence whatsoever. ... For this, one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker.
Source here.
Nothing in this quote is false, again, so I don't see what your problem is with it. The state monopoly on violence is the vast majority of the time maintained not directly through violence but indirectly through the
threat of violence. This is true for all revolutions, from the Russian to the French to the American. Every single class/group that rises to power must "suppress, rifle in hand, all attempts to tear the power out of its hands" for it to maintain such power (the quote is Trotsky's, from the same chapter of the book as this quote is from). He goes on:
Where it has against it a hostile army, it will oppose to it its own army. Where it is confronted with armed conspiracy, attempt at murder, or rising, it will hurl at the heads of its enemies an unsparing penalty.
As Trotsky rightfully said in your quote, "one has to be merely and simply a hypocritical Quaker" to "morally condemn" this truth.
Anyways, you can keep going if you wish; I'm well used to the dishonest attempts at misrepresenting Trotsky as saying/doing/being something that he isn't or didn't do. I'm just more used to it coming from Stalinists than you.
By the way, did you even read
Terrorism and Communism or did you just go to Google and type in something like "communism terror trotsky"?:roll: