/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Primarily entryism (not even for demsoc parties but socdem parties) and an utter refusal to collaborate with socialists who are tolerant of the "degenerate workers state" that was the USSR etc. The fact is Trotskyism has evolved from the views of Trotsky himself and has become a sort of left anti-communism. Many Trots are perfectly fine in my eyes and I say that as someone who thinks Stalin was pragmatic, but it is dogma mostly that makes them hard to work with.

ML objections to Trotsky's critiques are really silly when they make the exact same criticisms but simply shift the blame from Stalin to Khruschev. Ironically "anti-revisionist" MLs were more guilty of what they accused Trotsky of. Trotsky criticized the USSR but never said it ceased to be socialist or was no longer worthy of support (especially in a war with Germany). "Anti-revisionist" MLs meanwhile were going much farther than this and accusing the USSR of no longer being socialist, being a "social imperialist" power, no better than the US, etc.

>>2591284
So in essence they encapsulate the problem with left-wing puritanism and niche ideologies ?

>>2591286
spot on

>>2591294
>they encapsulate the problem with left-wing puritanism and niche ideologies ?
This is precisely the problem with modern trotskyism.

>>2591298
It's not a problem unique to Trotskyism at all though.

>>2591300
Of course not, but that's not the topic of discussion. Most "mainstream" Marxist Leninist parties are not dogmatically anti-trotskyist. But most Trotskyist movements are dogmatically anti "Stalinist".

>>2591302
That's been my experience as well, but there are more hardline ML parties that very much exhibit the same thinking as Trotskyists.

>>2591305
>but there are more hardline ML parties that very much exhibit the same thinking as Trotskyists.
Yes and they are a stain on the wider movement. The CPGB-ML for example is notorious for telling its membership to disrupt marxist bookclubs and discussion groups organised by trotskyist organisations. It's ghost-worship. 90 year old wannabe nostalgia.

because trots are objectively anticommunist

they're killing the planet with 10,000 student newspapers nobody will ever read. they think you can create communism just by infiltrating soc dem parties. they don't have any real criticisms of USSR economic policy, only that they'd do what stalin did but somehow magically better.
That said, I think trotsky said a lot of true things and any Marxist who doesn't read him is an ideologically irredeemable idiot - the ML obsessive foaming at the mouth about him is boring, braindead and cringe.
All in all it's his modern followers who are the worst thing about him.

Not much, I’m an ML but I would rather work with them than isolate myself

>>2591457
Tbh there was only one split in communist history that really mattered in the grand scheme of things, and it wasn't Trots who were responsible.

it's just wrong.
https://marxistthinktank.org/comments-on-the-transitional-programme/

>>2591280
It's more about the extremely negative experiences people have with trot parties, tbh.

>>2591280
Beyond constantly splitting over everything when they supposedly agree with democratic centralism, the main problem was Trotsky. He was supported by the capitalist west because he constantly spread anti-Stalin and anti-USSR propaganda, tried to stir up terrorism inside the USSR and even advocated breaking up the USSR right after Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. All because his ego couldn't handle being exiled and he needed to be in charge.
After he finally died Trotskyist parties were just anti-USSR communists that capitalists let hang around in order to split the movement as much as possible and they have been easily ignored ever since.

>>2591457
To be fair, MLs are also guilty of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_parties_in_Nepal

>>2591280
The reason trotskyism appeared in the first place is because it was a wrecker group that undermined the role of the party as the command center of the working class and believed that socialist construction in the Soviet Union was impossible. No wonder westoids loved it so much.

Trotskyism alone is too narrow and stubborn
Islamic Trotskyism is the future of humanity

>>2591644
The MLs in Nepal are a pretty bad case, but cmon

>>2591302
Most mainstream Marxist Leninist parties support NATO against Russian imperialism
https://www.solidnet.org/article/Urgent-Joint-Statement-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-No-to-the-imperialist-war-in-Ukraine/
And then internet "MLs" have the nerve to disagree with that and accuse trotskyists of having niche opinions and being splitters

>>2591863
Yes, but with ulterior motives beyond just "helping russian speaking ukrainians". All capitalist nations have ulterior motives.

>>2591280
Functionally there is no difference between them and the Stalinites, especially since their main point of disagreement (the USSR) has been dead for 35 years. Trots and MLs are both constantly splitting, corrosively sectarian, and have had wildly differing opinions on everything.

>>2591307
they just posted this

>>2591863
Yeah and the U.S. Navy just defensively made off with a Venezuelan oil tanker.

>>2591286
I consider myself a MLoid and agree with anti-revisionists on a lot of things but what you are describing is real, they straight up end up doing great man theory when they say Khrushchev and Deng killed the international communist movement of the 20th century, when it was american imperialism that did that. Its true Khrushchev and Deng did damage it but anti-revisionists end up straight up using them as scapegoats and sweeping for the CIA sometimes.

>>2591887
Deng saved the PRC

>>2591452
>they're killing the planet with 10,000 student newspapers nobody will ever read.
It's old fashioned but those newspapers used to be serious shit.

>>2591280
>>Wants the Party to lead the revolution
Bureaucrat.
>>Wants to establish councils/re-establish multiparty elections within the scope of socialism once the revolution abolishes capitalism
It'd be contradictory to have one party leading the working class and to then have multiparty elections, that would defeat the party's purpose. Also political parties are bourgeois.
>>Wants to be worldwide so that the bourgeoisie can't establish itself somewhere else
Yeah but how does that actually happen?
>The ML actions don't seem to have been this excellent too
Which proves that they're both impotent.

I can't speak to historical divisions as I've never found Trotsky that worthwhile as a theorist. I still don't understand what permanent revolution would mean in a practical sense had Trotsky taken power in the 20s, and Stalin ended up siding with the left of the party by the end of the 20s anyway.

As an organiser in Britain, I have frequent contact with Trots. They vary depending on the party.

> Socialist Party
Honestly, these guys are fine. They're a key part of TUSC which is a worthwhile project. They tend to have good links with local councils and, in my limited experience, will engage with MLs in good faith. They're not very radical so this probably helps avoid pointless sectarian bickering, or maybe I've only spoken with the good ones.

> SWP
They're sort of okay, I guess. Some of the work they do, like the People's Assembly and Stop the War, is important and MLs work alongside them. Individually they're often fairly based older ladies who genuinely give a fuck and will work with you in good faith. As an org they're hopelessly committed to entryism and we've all heard the horror stories of how they lie and cheat and subvert collective movements to their organisational goals. The classic symbol of this is how they show up to broad left events with protest signs with their name plastered on it - just so lame and bad faith lol. They get a lot of work done but for little use - quite impressive how busy they are without their work going anywhere meaningful.

>RCP (formally Socialist Appeal)
Yeah, these guys suck really, really bad. Their political project is based on having the most radical and correct opinions, and then educating everyone to agree with these opinions. This is why they only sell newspapers and run internal educationals, because they think revolution entails convincing the working class to agree with their very limited and idealist interpretation of Marxism. They don't need to base their movement on the working class and their experiences because they already have the Correct Opinions TM. Any meaningful organisation within the working class is a waste of time and there's always an excuse to not do it - bureaucratic unions and such like.

Individually, they're almost always objectionable in their interactions with MLs. Just looking to pick a fight and bicker away. Actually, this is how they behave more so when in a group. When you speak to them 1 to 1 they can be polite enough but they always bring the conversation back to vague non specific notions of what it means to be a communist. Try and talk to them about local campaigning and see how long that lasts, lol. But yeah, come across a few of em in a group and see how quickly they adopt an attitude of smug moral superiority.

In fairness, they recruit heavily from unis and politically naive teenagers, so you can't hold too much ire for them as people, even if they are very very annoying. A few will grow up and leave and become serious working class organisers, and many more will drift away to become shitlibs and eventually neo-cons. Such is the half life of student radicals.

>Other fringe Trot orgs
Basically fall into SWP or RCP tier depending on the org. AWL are particularly horrendous. I recall them flogging their newspaper at a refugee hotel defence action which had a frontpage calling for more arms to Ukraine lol.

Trotsky is OK but trotskyists are not.
In my country, trotskyists just repeat the liberal's geopolitical positions. They're all "free ukraini", "down with Maduro!", "Cuba's a dictatorship", and on and on. All they care about is "being right" and selling newspapers. They don't have the slightest interest in taking power.

>>2592540
I agree, he still did damage to the international movement, but it was inevitable imo.

>>2593356
Sure, Deng made retarded choices. But was Mao any better after the Sino-Soviet Split and the "le hegemon" nonsense?