Trotskyism

ML's as in Marxist Leninists right? Sorry new to leftypol
And aren't most people here ML's and therefore against Trotsky?

Then it's clear you didn't read the article and/or are butthurt to see him judged in a negative light and are projecting. The author specifically makes the point of looking at Trotsky in his own historical period within his own realm of options, examining his words and deeds in a period that for two thirds of its length was before the communist left faction even became a thing, and in the final third was barely starting to create a somewhat unified narrative.

The occasional surveys indicate there is a relatively big ML presence on Holla Forums, but they are definitely not a majority, though I don't remember the exact numbers

this place is mostly ancom and leftcom

What is the difference between ML's and leftcoms, aren't they close to eachother.

They have almost nothing in common. See: reddit.com/r/marxism_101/comments/5j2svv/why_are_rcommunism101_and_this_subreddit_two/dbdlbi1/ (note: ultraleft here is an alternate modern portmanteau for left communism).

The entire premise of leftcoms is that they are not MLs(or trotskyists for that matter). Wikipedia covers the basic historical background rather well, you should check it out

The author claims Trotsky was somehow absent from politics for a year, evidently to ignorant to know that Trotsky was denounced, forced to resign his posts, relegated to lower positions. Framing this as some sort of opportunism is disingenuous. Equally condemning him for allying with Zinoviev against Stalin and providing no clear reasoning for why this was not the right course of action is hardly a good argument.
Aside from that the criticism of Trotsky appears no different from most leftcom critiques of leninism/bolshevism ie. "reeeee why are you doing things! workers power isn't socialism!" while completely ignoring the situation of the soviet union and the world stage and its isolation. The article you linked makes absolutely no coherent argument against Trotsky or Trotskyism apart from being disingenuous in its attack on Trotksy's character. It is shallow and lacking any historical nuance, well and fully divorced from the material conditions of the proletariatand the revolution just like left communism in general btw.

BECAUSE HE KILLED THE KRONSTADT SAILORS.

He is the SPD of Russia, offing the people that were meant to save us.

leftcoms understand marx and are autistic
MLs don't understand marx and are autistic
ancoms are a mixed bag of autists (I read marx and have leftcom tendencies)

But the SPD supported counter-revolutionaries to suppress the revolution whereas Trotsky suppressed a revolt which tried to frustrate the revolutionaries defence against counter-revolution.

...

They represented the people and the popular want for true soviet democracy. Stepan Maximovich Petrichenko was a revolutionary and had fought since before the February revolution they founded a workers' soviet on the island after the october revolution because he believed in socialism and democracy. The revolt was in 1921, when the revolution had already been won. The Kronstadt sailors asked for the soviet democracy they were promised, and were killed for it.

Remind me how the Bremen soviet started off?

Nah
Trotskyism stopped being relevant when stalin died

From '25 to '26 Trotsky was still in the upper echelons of the Russian Politburo and not only that, he was still the commander of the fucking Red Army. In those two years he was however entirely politically inactive.

Because in the line just before, we are reminded that in rhetoric Trotsky opposed the Comintern's turn to the right and the intensification of bureaucracy but then allied with the one guy who was vying for perhaps more than even Stalin, who he at the same stood in opposition to.

Proletarian activity, as is laid out from the very first few paragraphs, is innately revolutionary but also the very basis upon which the communist movement stands. What isn't socialism is the substitution of this activity by a separate entity, which Trotsky had always denounced but then went on to enact himself, most perfidiously with his support of stripping Soviets of political power and going against Lenin's in principle lax attitude towards proletarian activity that didn't follow the Comintern's line. Once again here you take workers' power as it exists in your mind, not as it actually existed in Russia and where communist activity was crushed, by Trotsky.

In a different text the same author, Dauvé, goes over in lengths what happened in the October revolution and on and Russia's isolated and (relatively) primitive technological position are very much factors. In fact, this same article, not once is the fact that Russia wasn't socialist taken to mean that it should have entirely been abandoned; left to its own devices, but that there were alternate things to do, especially things that were not to conflict with Trotsky's own principles he failed to follow.

It's almost entirely theoretical, looking to Trotsky's works and how he defined things and how these things differed not only with Marx, but his contemporaries in Lenin, later in the second and third points with Pannekoek and Bordiga, among others.

More buzzword slinging as projection, and I'll link that other text by Dauvé I was talking about here to show just how well-versed he is in how things were and how he definitely considers Russia's precarious position to be central: prole.info/pdfs/insurrectionsdie.pdf.

In an attempt to have meaningful dialogue with you the best you can do is wave off while thinking nobody will notice how disingenuous you are. Lame as fuck and no wonder Trotsky and Trotskyism is a joke on this board when people like you represent and "defend" it.

This.

To answer more thoroughly tho, back when I was an ML I hated him just because it's required almost. That said, I've come to like him as a revolutionary, as well as a theorist to a degree, to be frankly honest the differences between him and Stalin are pretty negligible. Also, this is a really good read and worth any anons time. Besides all that I'd also say the Johnson-Forest Tendency is very Based.

Why is it that everyone who hates Leftcoms on this board is a clinical retard with zero reading comprehension?

There's pretty much no reason to be a Trot or an ML since 1990. There's plenty of reasons to be a Marxist, but almost non to be a Trot or ML specifically.

Why are you so mean? We do understand Marx. We tried the hardest to achieve Socialism. If we achieved that is where Leftcoms and MLs have varying opinions but you can not conclude from that that we don't understand Marx. Marx didn't really give a point-to-point guideline on how to achieve socialism and was wrong on where the revolution will occur.

We are autistic, that's correct, but realize we adopted the autism as some sort of protection mechanism against revisionist subversion which was hitting almost all ML states at some point so we conclude we need to be even more dogmatic.

if you had a proper materialist analysis you'd realize socialism was impossible to achieve and subversion inevitable, and most ML theory served to justify their policies

marx is cool, lenin is cool, but stop being a 'marxist'-'leninist'

The USSR hasn't been around for 50 years and I highly doubt you participated in the October Revolution. The single most autistic thing MLs do is claim the Russian Revolution as their person achievement and then use it as an argument against ancoms and leftcoms. You weren't there nigga, stop claiming it, LARPing doesn't mean you aren't in an armchair too you faggot, or are you personally engaged in an armed struggle we aren't aware of?

Sorry, meant to say 30, but technically by ML logic Russia hasn't been Socialist for about 60 years.

trots in my country, unlike MLs, do not take part in class collaboration projects with nationalist and other petit bourgeois movements.

In my country some MLs support ISIS because it's "anti-imperialist"

Poor Trotsky has become a pre-internet meme thanks to Trotskyites.