Come on, too much hatred for him, he wasn't *that* bad. His historical analysis was good...

Kind of like contemporary Holla Forums

He was great. Up himself, made mistakes, but ultimately really good.

Anarchists hate him because of the civil war and vanguardism, and Stalinists hate him because he pointed out the dead end of bureaucracy.

Come on.

Leftcoms are assholes because almost every other tendency has abandoned Marx and generally doesn't know theory worth shit. Their faggotry makes sense when you understand how sick they are dealing with fake Marxists.

Is this bait?

...

I am optimistic that in the upcoming few decades, the left will eventually stop treating historical figures as idols. whose writings are becoming increasingly antiquated as we sink deeper into the neoliberal era

It's ridiculous, and the whole Stalin v Trotsky divide is riddled with hypocritical positions. Most Trotskyists idolize Che but hate Stalin, while most Stalinists idolize Rosa but hate Trotsky. Moronic, because Che hated Trotsky and Rosa hated the Bolsheviks. Why do they get free passes?
I doubt Trotsky would have been any less repressive than Stalin. Lets not forget the dude was in charge of the Red Army.

Other tendencies just pay lip service to Marx while defending nationalism, conflating state capitalism with socialism, and defending reactionary regimes in the name of anti-imperialism. Obviously not all other tendencies have fallen into this level.

Depends on in what context, as in some he may have been on par, but in others, definitely less. Trotsky, and much of the movement he left behind, had a serious boner for internal debate, which was one of the original main components of Bolshevism. I highly doubt he would have gone as balls to the wall ideologically repressive as Stalin. Labour camps for aristocrats and capitalist agitators? For sure. Executing them? Likely. But the Purges, internal witch-hunts and the elimination of ideological opposition, definitely wouldn't have been a thing. Same with forced collectivization. The viewpoint of Trotsky was more in line with what Engels had outlined years earlier- a slower, more gradual absorbing of smaller rural landowners and peasants into collective farms, with re-distribution of the property of larger landowners.

As well, IIRC Che was found with a copy of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution when he died. So while there were ideological differences, I wouldn't call it hatred. Either way though, I don't even understand why so many people worship the guy.

This is Liberal ideology at its purest, and it's also a false dichotomy. There's no "Trotsky OR Stalin" choice, it was the revolution or Stalin. Trotsky didn't want to become dictator, didn't want a single individual to have enough power to overrule the party, didn't want all that concentration of power in one single figure. We can't act like they were two people fighting for the same gig.

It's certainly true on Holla Forums, not sure about IRL

he is a qt though

Trotsky was a total retard about economics (and call me sectarian, but I think being bad at econ means you can't be a good Marxist). He argued that for a train network to be run in an efficient manner, the parts need to cover their costs independently.

Uuuh.

I don't hate Trotsky, he was pretty interesting. I can even appreciate some of his early contributions to fighting the anti-communist forces in Russia. His writings are interesting to read even if they're filled with self-aggrandizement and promoted counter-revolution within the USSR. Where I'm totally uncompromising is with his utterly delusional followers, a number of which can even be disturbingly liberal at times. Trotsky only started whining about the bureaucracy after his was kicked out of the party, before that point he seemed to be totally OK with it. And yet, somewhat laughably, his common image is still that of an anti-bureaucrat.

Would a Trotsky regime have been as repressive as Stalinism? No, but the difference wouldn't be half so great as the Trots believe. Trotsky routinely proved he wasn't above violently curbing the power of local soviets and trade unions. How the Trotskyists reconcile his actual behavior during the revolution with their ideological standpoint is beyond me. Ultimately Trotsky's leadership would've proven drastically inferior to Stalin and might've even led to the destruction of the Soviet state. Only one country in the world had shown any revolutionary potential and Trotsky never demonstrated he had in him what was required to protect it.

Highly critical, but not explicitly against. She was well aware of the proletarian character of the party.

That's certainly how you'd like to see yourselves I'm sure. If you strawman all your political opposites to that absurd extent it's no wonder that you think of yourselves so highly.

Speaking as a Trot, I get you. Our movement wouldn't have split nearly as much if it hadn't been infiltrated by so many retards, liberals, and Stalinist agents.

Trotsky >>>>>>>> Trotskyists

I've been waiting for the right thread to publish this webm.

DL the whole audiobook here: mariborchan.si/audio/trotsky/

I agree Cliffites are shit, but aren't OrthoTrots just Stalinists who don't like Stalin? Their positions are the same on every issue (nationalism, anti-imperialism, class character of the USSR (post Stalin and post Khrushchev being the only differences)

The problem with Trotsky, is he was that one leftist, who cares more about creating theory, to appear intelectual and get bitches, than actually doing what has to be done.

(Even if he did war better than Stalin)

...

And, yknow, Trotsky was a gigantic hypocrite.

Also I'm dissapointed that the usual gang of M-Ls aren't in this thread telling us Stalin ebin meme nuffin.

great book

Wait, is this a commentary on Terrorism and Communism, or is it a direct narration?

Whats wrong with taafites?

What do you think?

His argument for a gold standard sure was fucking dumb.

he did btfo the anarkiddies ill give him that

aren't you talking about Stalin?

What is the best trot tendency and why?

...

splitting

CWI

There are some other good trot orgs though. Many are politically identical.

Alunya art has become really great over the years.

In Sweden we have a chapter of them, and a section of the MIT in our Left Party.

I don't really consider myself a trot, but I want to get active in something and all the other parties are tankies or anarchists (i.e. no actual party in that case).

So my choice is between one that's actually commie but notoriously sectarian (their newspaper is embarrassing), and one that's stuck inside a socdem idpol-as-fuck party believing that they'll totally manage to turn into around any minute now.

Posadism

I don't consider myself a trot either, but I joined CWI anyway. I know a couple of the Swedish comrades, they're pretty cool.

Ok, I've also been having thoughts on the 5th Internationalists (Arbetarmakt), for said non-trot reason - since they seem to consider themselves part of a project to move beyond Trotskyism, or am I wrong?

Tho their size has made me hesitant, as I worry they might be even more sectarian than the CWIs are, still you give me lot of hope for the latter.

anarchists rekt

orthotrots tbh

Trotsky died for our sins

...

...

read a fucking book

No, you.

Lenin would punch you in the face probably

I don't know why you think telling us to read "the infantile disorder" is going to have any effect. Literally every leftcom ever has read "the infantile disorder", it's one of the first books mentioned whenever someone asks for a leftcom reading list. Ironically Lenin kinda codified left communism when he wrote it.

this tbh

:^) just like usual. All is well on Holla Forums

...

Lenin had far more in common with leftcoms than any ML.

This. I sometimes wonder whether tankies have ever read "state and revolution". This part in particular:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s2