Why is Trotsky/Trostkyism hated so much in here?

Hardline marxist leninist parties have obsession about it.

Nope. Permanent revolution is an orthodox, principled stance, "socialism in one country" is an impressionistic one. They differ fundamentally on the question of socialist institutions under world capitalism.

Nice meme lmao trots btfo

...

Outside of the 1930's what would MLs and Trots do differently if either seized state power tomorrow.

Use the proletarian state to sponsor revolution in the rest of Western Europe and America? Regard third world workers' movements according to the extent to which they address capitalism as an international system in need of a solution on the international stage, and support them accordingly? Do things democratically? I'm not sure I understand your question, it's as if you aren't actually familiar with the two in the first place.

Wow, I wonder why bourgeois counter-agitators have picked this one strain of thought to infest, co-opt, and undermine at every turn? Must be because it has less revolutionary potential than its alternatives.

kek, because trots only split due to influence from porky, right? Fcuk no man, they split because they're fucking cults that constantly have huge fights about who should be the Leader.

Also if revolutionary potential is measured in pig infiltration then trots come far behind militant vegans, ecoterrorists, black nationalists, white supremacists, and pretty much any kind of muslim.

Splits are over ideological issues and those of principle. The petty-bourg pseudo-left really likes getting into trot orgs, as points out, and they turn out to have principles incompatible with communism. So either they split and take adventurist "radicals" who could've been educated along with them, or they dominate the party and the real commies need to leave to have an actual party again.
lel
Which aren't socialist, and don't purport to be socialist? You can't co-opt socialism by taking over avowedly non-socialist orgs. The others present some threats to the status quo and bourgeois rule, but this is not the same thing as a socialist revolution with effective revolutionary leadership.
Either way, this isn't an argument about the actual theory itself. You're just shitflinging about the movement, which, yes, leaves a lot to be desired, which trots will be the first to admit.

hi SEP

did you ever stop to think that the shitty cultishness of your movement might be rooted in the shitty millenarianism of your theory?

ad hom
still not seeing any arguments

I believe this link should explain more than anything written ITT
sawant.seattle.gov/progressive-plan-for-small-business/

hey man, that wasn't an ad hom, i was just making a wild guess at the trot cult you belong to based on your use of cult jargon

that was definitely an argument, but i see i have to spell it out for you: trots don't have an actual working theory about the transition to communism or their own praxis, so their meetings all end up concluding that "the political conditions are flat, we just have to wait for muh big capitalist crisis to make us not a tiny cult"

because they don't have a real political project beyond 'get ignored on the street until jesus the conditions come', they have to employ cult-like coercive measures to keep their college kid membership from drifting away, because the politics are shit and the activity is dishearteningly useless

kronstadt, splitting, newspapers, kronstadt again, gold standard, thinking worker's power=socialism, thinking you can get from feudalism to capitalism, fucking kronstadt

Which is completely irrelevant to the actual arguments someone presents, yes. So that is ad hom.
Aside from the transitional program and anything trotskyists themselves infer about the transition or their role in revolutionary leadership, sure, fine.
Again, you clearly are unfamiliar with the ideas themselves, and so you've reduced yourself to arguing impressionistically about the character of these movements. Which is basically useless.

yeah man you should uncritically follow the party line of anything you've ever joined wherever it leads, even if it leads to stalinism and historically necessary collapse of the first ever socialist state. If you've ever registered as a Democrat or with any other bourgeois party in any country, you need to be agitating for them.
Go re-read revolution betrayed and tell me it's not a gross misrepresentation to claim that Trotskyism hinges on or even suggests reintroducing the gold standard in 2017's America.
No evidence of this.
The bourgeoisie of agrarian Russia had an arrested development because of the action of international capital. Their historically necessary development couldn't take place because of this antagonism, and the proles derived their revolutionary significance not from them but from their relationship to international capital itself.
I don't think you realize you're defending Menshevism specifically, and not "non-trot socialism" in general, you silly boy. Menshevists get out.
Of course this isn't a dig against the head of state at the time, Lenin, or against Trotsky the man and politician, but it's a dig against all of "trotskyism" in general. Damn trots! They did kronstadt!

smdh man
this is all such low quality bait it's not even funny

The theory of "permanent revolution" always seemed like a cop-out to me, and it hasn't been relevant since after WWII.

you mean your shitty electoral campaigns that get 0.02% of the vote?

so basically let's just do russia over again and hope it turns out better, how inspiring

don't mistake lowercase shitposting with ignorance, you just haven't presented any arguments beyond vague generalities yet

where did i do that? i said they don't have any working theory or praxis about the transition, you countered with shitty electoral campaigns and vague shit about 'what trotskyists themselves infer about their role in revolutionary leadership' as if their tiny little cults are any-fucking-where near 'revolutionary leadership'

Because they're utopian idealists

No, I don't. What the fuck?
Again, W H A T ?
Yeah, you're allowed to influence and mislead people so long as it's "lowercase" "shitposting," right?
No, I didn't.
Idiot.
Trotskyism is a theory developed further by "trotskyists," at least those in line with Trotsky's theory in the first place, but sure, the fact that they don't dominate the bourgeois government means their theory is useless. Ok. You kneejerk anti-trot.
Your posting here is barely coherent. I hope people can notice that and maybe even move past a politics determined exclusively by memes. Fuck.

They give Trotsky a bad name. The guy wasn't the messiah just a very naughty boy but he didn't deserve the autistic fanbase which bastardized his thought into dogma.

This is why

neocons

Fucking this. Everytime there is a trot thread you see incoherent shit about newspapers, neocons and Trotskyist theory. It's not just memeing, but people truly believe the memes are the actual theory. Leftcoms get their dicked sucked constantly on here because they are the only ones that read any semblance of theory (even if it's just limited to marx and other leftcoms), excluding the exception of a random poster.

...

In practical class struggle Trotzkists seem to always end up on Porky's side for some reason, steering up conflict among leftists of various flavours. Following that tradition, the biggest Trotzkist paper in German language is obsessed with shit-flinging against our biggest actual leftist party Linke, which still has some sort of hard left political influence in the Bundestag.
That being said, i do actually kind of like their ideology, however i've never met an outspoken Trotzkist who wasn't either a terrible prick or plain stupid.

So instead of exploiting worker's abstract value in order to redistribute it among the population you'd constantly reinvest it in endless revolutionary wars? Interesting. It really is unsurprising that you guys always end up turning into NeoCons

Contentless statement.

I'm saying ML or Trot it's just Social Democracy but with a DoTP.

Because Holla Forums is anti-semitic.

To anyone not used to organizing: Trots are extremely damaging to other left organizations, they are sectists who will infilitrate and sabotage and fuck your shit up. Do not at any point cooperate with trot organizations.

You could say this about every Marxist or leftist thinker tbh.

Because they're either liberals going through a phase or tankies who hate Stalin.

Also they're dicks about differing opinions social issues, pretty much Trans Rights is a bigger issue than the liberation of the working class, and any white working class worker that isn't completely down for social issues from the start is instantly branded a reactionary

Basically all socdems

Sounds like ML to me.

and this sounds like leftcoms.

...

8ch.net/leftypol/res/1590962.html

Really, user. The ONLY ones?

I was in a trot party for 3 years, basically the problem was full of careerists who wanted everyone elses dues to support them to be professional activists while getting the minimumwagetariat to pay their bills, not to mention being infested with idpol bullshit like every trot org.

IMO i don't like trotskyism because it seems like they infest every single leftist thing in the west it just seems like a way to market marxism while saying your against the soviet union, like a 'acceptable to libruls' version of ML.

Also, the old school tankies were right to call trotsky a fascist because his criticisms of the soviet economic system were similar to von mises economic calculation argument. Face it trotskys position would place him on the lunatic right today

finally, /r/socialism . need i say more?

kek

ofc trotsky only criticized the economic system under stalin

Betrayed the tankies
Betrayed the socdems
Betrayed smashies
Loved by liberals

Just a cunt in general.

Quality meme my man

I'm pretty critical of Trotskyism but fucking c'mon.

When talking shit on the Soviet Union, as they do, almost every faux-leftist liberal will claim that it would have only "gone well" if Trotsky had become secretary-general instead of Stalin.

Trotskyist thought is also very much in the foundation of the modern idpol left.

City-sponsored pension program, municipal bank, social services for the homeless and mentally ill… sounds pretty good.

Small business isn't going away any time soon. When Sawant said the machinist union should seize the Boeing plant in the event of a closure she was publicly roasted for months.

You mean that Holla Forums is full of tanks and tanks who quote mine Lenin?

Sponsoring revolution =/= world domination by military conquest.
Honestly this strawman gets thrown at me so much I wonder if you are even trying.
Fine, skepticism of any bureaucrat caste "separate from and above" the rest of society, accountable representatives subject to recall, power to the soviets, workers' self-management, not taking "revolutionary purity" to mean a state of affairs where leaders can murder political opponents under the guise of party discipline or defense against subversion, etc. It's all very Leninist.
Stalinists stop at "social democracy wearing red" because the workers' state is still embedded in the system of capitalism, which still has its contradictions, and still affects said society. Trots aim to abolish that system. The difference is night and day.

Idpol is inherently anti-Trotskyist though. We're pretty comfortable here making principled judgements about whether or not something that packages itself as"socialist" actually is, and get rightly frustrated when Holla Forums screeches "no true scotsman," but this entire board seems terrified of making that same exact judgement about anything that packages itself as "Trotskyism."

The SEP isn't. The WSWS is a major publication and takes a staunch, obvious stand against that sort of thing. So not only is your claim false, it's disconcertingly ignorant.
Sounds like you just joined a shit org, man. I dunno what to say. We can talk it out over a DSA ice cream social and pizza party if you like.

I think all we can really do on that point is speculate one way or another, but it is clear that the processes of international capital did it in, and it is clear these needed to be resolved.
This is an interesting claim, as the intellectual foundations to intersectionality, "socialist" sex politics, and modern reformism/idealism in general actually reject many of the key fundamental points to Trotskyism/classical Marxism, and this has been reviewed in depth both in pic related and in several threads here. On what do you base this notion that Trotskyism is actually behind and responsible for the modern faux-left?

It suffers the same flaws as Leninism. (Being irrelevant and impotent outside of the material conditions of revolutionary Russia) with the added caveat of an outmoded understanding of geopolitics.

There is a reason the Trots all became Neocons.

I like Trotsky, but making an -ism out of him is cancer.

The problems with Trotskyism aren't necessarily a problem if you discard the practices of organizations subscribing to the doctrine. Revolution Betrayed is pretty good, tbh, and he was a superior Marxist to Stalin

I don't really see it as a whole new -ism, to be frank. It's pretty much just orthodox Marxism with a heavier, specific emphasis on permanent revolution than the original, owing to the natural progress of capitalism. If anything, it's become more relevant under neoliberalism than it was in Trotsky's day, and it's essentially the final repudiation of utopianism.

Why do Trots like the Gold Standard?

Maybe they don't know about Energy Standard?

We don't

Idk nigga, I've seen it mentioned quite a bit.

It's memes

Alright, I'll take your word for it, but as far as memes go that's a weird one if it isn't founded in anything. But yeah, the hatred for Trots on this board is 100% LARPing, it's like when anons unironically accuse SocDems of killing Rosa, or when anarkiddies are unironically scared that Marxists will gulag them if they get into power, it's embarrassing, it's like historical roleplaying in place of an actual argument.

Trotsky suggested a gold standard for his day's Russia in Revolution Betrayed, but most people don't really recall it since it wasn't really an integral part of any arguments. And policy is not theory.
There's no real argument about going back to the gold standard today.

i keep seeing this mentioned, can you fill me in pls

all the extensions of his theories have turned into unconvincing undialectical nonsense

his critiques raise good points, if he hadn't been murdered by a certain someone retards probably never would have used him as a bludgeon to splinter orgs and denounce AES

Johnson-Forest Tendency is pretty Based fam

I'd honestly be curious to know what Trots on this board think of them.

There was an anarchist mutiny that the Bolshevik leadership put down, anarchists like to point to this as evidence that Lenin and Trotsky are really "no different" from Stalin.

Holla Forums is mostly composed of new leftists who feel like they need to have a side on every conflict, cleavage and drama among the Left even if they don't really understand it.

For example - and after much reiteration about why this is wrong they've stopped doing it - but back in the day most threads about Trotsky would be 90% people praising Stalin because of the industrialization of the Soviet Union and successfully fighting the Nazis. For anyone with a Wikipedia-depth understanding of the subject this is ludicrous, but unfortunately many people here lack this.

because trotsky didnt actually have any ideas

Trotsky himself only stopped his support of centralization, forced collectivization and general forced labor AFTER being removed from from the Soviet Union. Given most who wrote about him back in the day painting him out to be an opportunistic liar, it's not out of the question that his moral opposition to Stalin's policy (the policy that he was writing in support of years prior) was purely opportunistic.

Trots themselves are ideological illiterates who often jump neck deep into identity politics. All the Trot parties here removed or hid most references to workers rights and socialism off of their websites and replaced it with "DA WOMYN AND GAYZ" to try to get the student vote. They also like to hijack protests and smaller parties and claim it is 'entryism'. Impotent protests about genuine workers issues down here have often been turned into autistic screeching matches when the Socialist Alternative rent-a-mob comes down.

tldr, trotsky is shit, his followers are worse, people generally dislike the former because of the latter.

removed or hid most references to workers rights and socialism off of their websites for election time*

Quote mine nothing, Trots are traitors. If you believe otherwise you must cite your evidence. Go on…

The SEP are some of the fiercest critics of idpol out there, some Trot parties are legit on that issue.

My issue with them is mostly the sectarianism. Five tiny parties which spend more time attacking each other than the bourgeoisie can't possibly build a revolutionary movement. At least they publish good newspapers.

Because Trotsky managed to fuck over every vaguely left group while alive and Trotskists are faggots.

interesting…. explain this

Has no one on this board read Based CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya?

Meant to attach pic.

You got any example of this besides the occasional Trot support for Syrian jihadists?

Admittedly I don't know much about them
The whole "oppressed identity groups' struggles for identity liberation are inherently revolutionary and can ignite broader revolutionary transformation" is something I'm pretty skeptical of, and if anything the radical student movements of the 60's and the New Left of the 70's onward vindicates this, and not their, view. The "state capitalism vs degenerated workers' state" issue doesn't excite me all that much and seems to be largely semantic (the label should be irrelevant so long as we understand the specific character of the state and its contradictions) and I certainly don't think that "socialist teachings have fully absorbed into the public consciousness to where a revolutionary leadership is unnecessary." The latter seems rather temporalist, and not rooted in convergent historical processes. For instance, change in available media and the advent of the internet can certainly change levels of class consciousness, when they wouldn't change, say, the labor theory of value.
It seems like an intellectual justification for/influence on the modern pseudo-left, in several ways. But using history to reinterpret dialectics is an interesting concept at least, and I don't think enough people examine the rise of Stalinism as a social and historical process in its own right, as they purported to.

Hey, no arguments here. They're essentially pseudo-left thugs, and the SEP would be among the first to say so. Here's the thing, though, it's not just sectarian dick-measuring. They have actual, reasoned arguments. And much of them are the same as yours.

This.
It is unfortunate. In the past workers' movements have been derailed and co-opted, and it seems like one of the few safeguards against this is to stake out and defend robust theoretical foundations against opportunists and "pragmatists" only too happy to concede key premises of bourgeois rule. So then we get parties that do "too much" of that and come off as ineffectual, sectarian, and "out of the fight," while the opposite end (Syriza, OWS, and so on) continually shows itself as such. It's almost a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing, as if you can't really guard against subversion without making it your central goal and accepting stagnation, but you can't be laissez faire about it without immediately accepting stagnation of the opposite sort. Trot orgs run the full spectrum here, and people criticize (perhaps rightly) every position along it.
At least the SEP were forward thinking with the WSWS. The "nobody reads newspapers, it's not 1915" points have a lot of merit to them.

I'd say the Johnson-Forest Tendency are the perfect example of Marxists who tackle race and gender without falling into identity politics, along with Du Bois, Fanon, and the Panthers. Class is still always at the center of their critique, they just also understand that in colonial and settler-colonist situations race is an undeniable factor that needs to be addressed.

But he continued to support the measures taken in order to industrialize the country even in exile. In fact, The Revolution Betrayed criticizes them for no collectivizing part of the land before. Do you have any citation on this?

He might have criticized at some point the scale of the collectivization, after all the Left Opposition still believed industrialization and collectivization ought to develop within the boundaries set by the NEP, but then again so did Stalin. In the 16th Party Conference he set the goals for the first 5 year-plan of collectivizing 20% of the land, and only circumstances pushed him further.

If it was pure opportunism why didn't he align the Left and the Right against Stalin after his break with Bukharin? As far as late 1932 when he had definitely lost, this is what he had to say about the man:

idk bro I feel like you're talking of your ass here.

Ok, when?

I mean, race clearly has to be addressed, at least insofar as it's obviously bound up with primitive accumulation and the origin of private property. But while the position of certain identity groups in society is inherently anti-status quo, I don't think they're inherently revolutionary.
As I say I'll probably disagree on theoretical grounds but I don't really see a poison pill here. Perhaps this represents a sort of boundary - a safe harbor as "far idpol" as you can go without doing idpol, if SoTS can be viewed as the "most postmodern" a Marxist can be without "being postmodern."

That's actually a good way of putting it, either way I recommend at least reading James' The Black Jacobins, if only to see his perspective, even if you disagree with it in it's entirety.

?????????????????????????

Perhaps. I really liked Douglass' Narrative, which was published three years before the Manifesto and manages to independently derive key "Marxist" theses on history and society. It's an illuminating insight into the slavery question if there ever was one.