Do you like Trotsky?

Trotsky seems to get a lot of hate, why is that? I mean I can see why tankies and anarchists wouldn't like him, but everyone seems to just dismiss Trotsky. Is it because of the not-best-behaviour of Trotskyites?

poal.me/jnkjso
poal.me/jnkjso
poal.me/jnkjso

Also: Please specify your ideology preferably

flag
not m'comrade.

I don't think he's TOO bad, but I can see the reasons why people dislike him.

theory of permanent revolution aint that bad, if its carried out successfully, we can avoid revisionism and corruption within the vanguard.
but imo the theory is outdated and no longer possible, its just too specific and situational.

Trotsky was absolutely based but Trots are for the most part utterly revisionist, sectarian and LARP-y.
The Fourth International was a mistake tbh

Trotskyism unfortunately attracted the kind of 'leftists' who want to roleplay being radical but can denounce Stalin/USSR/tankies. But Ortho-trots are cool.

based trot
Alasdair Macintyre called him some sort of messiah kek

The best thing to come out of Trotskyism is Posadaism and memes, by far.

Some Trots are awesome. Some are shitty. Depends on the organization. Judge them on their work and ideas.

Basically, what happened:
1) Trotsky himself was Socialist and Marxist, but he was trying to unite two different positions (Bolshevik and Menshevik), which led to inconsistencies in his theories. They were more or less useful, but not terribly so.

Then Trotsky's own predilections (contacts with West) led him to a defeatist position, when it came to deciding USSR's future: better to get market "socialism", rather than bet everything on radical industrialization of semi-medieval agrarian state and attempt to introduce planned economy (that was far beyond the economy practices at the time), while relying on barely educated peasants. This is where he was proven wrong. Despite all odds, Stalinist faction somehow managed to pull it all off.

2) After Trotsky got ousted, his ideology became even more reactionary: i.e. he was concentrating on disagreeing with Stalin, not doing his own independent thing. This made his new works even more biased/inconsistent.

3) By the time Trotsky died, there was a significant following, but no coherent unified theory. I.e. you could explain almost anything using Trotskyist arcane phrases and lingo. Movement united everyone who was anti-Soviet, but wanted to also feel and look Left. This is the point when it all went horribly horribly wrong (it went wrong before, but Trotsky was running his one-man show and didn't let thing get too far off-the-rails).

Trotskyism became hipster. It was no longer Marxism or even Socialism. It was a fashion. Hobby, rather than a ideological weapon more powerful than nukes. And it was still pretending to be something real.

You know those plastic-feathered white "Indians", whose ancestors were happily genociding real Indians? The ones who make real Indians cringe? Well, imagine those costumed Indians going to some reservation and telling real Indians that they are not real and, in fact, betrayed their ancestors, and that the costumed Indians are real Indians now.

This is why people hate Trotskyists.

I believe Trotsky was of the belief that bias in historical analysis wasn't a bad thing, but in fact made the analysis stronger. Also did he ever actually advocate for market socialism?

Rest I agree with except that Stalinists pulled anything off

How the two Hitchens' brothers turned out is all I need to know about trots

KEK.

Trotsky gets flak for being anti-stalinist, mainly, anti anarchist, secondly, and anything other than that is rare and not really present on this board to a high degree.

He was great leading the Red Army. Basically a hero of the Civil War. And his stuff on art is quite good.

Other than that, I don't care enough to bother.

He advocated practically for everything at one time or another.

> The workers’ state can achieve this [improvement of economic life and electrification] only through the market, which stimulates the personal and selfish interests of the petty proprietor.
Full revisionist. Would not World Revolution with. Obvious NEP (Nov 14th, 1922).


At this specific time (late 20s) he was positioning himself as Left (Leninist, to be precize: Right, Centre, and Leninist - totally not Left), while claiming that Stalin was Right (and pro-market). That was pure ideology mostly politics and should be taken with a grain of salt.

At the time I was talking about it was clear (well, to everyone except Bukharin) that NEP should be replaced, but the extent was up to discussion. Trotsky suggested leaving far more NEP in action than Stalin wanted. This, coupled with Trotsky's incessant demands to increase foreign investments into USSR (to an almost absurd levels), is enough for me to label it "market socialism".

They did. You need to go full posadist to believe otherwise.

Let's say opinions differ.

I really don't care enough.

"Thus, the first thing we need is immediate and serious measures to raise the productive forces of the peasantry.

This cannot be done without making important changes in our food policy. One such change was the replacement of the surplus appropriation system by the tax in kind, which implies a free market, at least in local economic exchange, after the tax has been paid.

What is the essence of this change?

Wrong ideas on this point are widespread. They are due mainly to the fact that no attempt is being made to study the meaning of the transition or to determine its implications, it being assumed that the change is from communism in general to the bourgeois system in general. To counteract this mistake, one has to refer to what was said in May 1918.

The tax in kind is one of the forms of transition from that peculiar War Communism, which was forced on us by extreme want, ruin and war, to regular socialist exchange of products. The latter, in its turn, is one of the forms of transition from socialism, with the peculiar features due to the predominantly small-peasant population, to communism."

- Trotsky :^), "The Tax in Kind".

I don't think this is accurate
Or this. He certainly wasn't a socdem. He objected to the idea of "socialism in one country" and saw the role of the party bureaucracy as akin to that of a company one of you might inherit in the capitalist world. It's purpose is one of undermining and overturning capitalism as a global system, rather than something which can be immediately liquidated for a post-class world or establish a "micro-socialism" within part of a capitalist world.
And the surge of critical theory and postmodernism, their dominance of academia and their broad lay appeal show he did not disagree with Stalin loudly or often -enough-
M8
Except of course for the aforementioned critical theorists and their intellectual descendants, who edged out the last traces of Marxist theory in favor of aesthetic and we're duly rewarded as the stooges of capitalism.
The label "trotskyist" is not practically subject to restrictions. Or at least its restrictions are far too pluralistic and cosmetic. The SEP and ICFI at least are firmly Marxist and represent an orthodox stance on Trotsky's ideas in agreement with Marxist foundations. There's a heavy emphasis on philosophical foundations and rejection of reactionary opportunism/pragmatism. The wsws has consistently been right on and correctly predicted the outcome of every major issue since its inception.
So you of course have to interpret the term "trotskyist" as you would "liberal" or "conservative" - which is to say not at all - and focus on the works of trotsky himself and the extent to which movements can lay legitimate claim to his and the Marxist intellectual heritage. Of course discounting posadism is necessary and indeed automatic, as a physical scientist may view claims of intelligent alien life or proposals which rely on its intervention on earth.

Trotskyisms association with Neoconservativism is probably the cause of most of the contemporary hate towards the ideology.

Okay.


And it is relevant how?


Yes, it is.

Contrarian much? I specifically wrote that he was Marxist.

And irrelevant. Are you claiming that he didn't want foreign investments? Because I can present his platform and the only concrete thing on industrialisation is "let's go get lots of credits from capitalists and buy staff from them" if you do.

Just because he wasn't foaming out of his mouth, didn't mean he wasn't biased.

Not an [guess what?]

Trotskyism is the most sectarian of movements. Because it is inconsistent.

It's called dogmatism. Or idealism. Or formalism. So many words.

I was answering the question why people are not amused by it, not trying to find excuses. Trotsky didn't get quarter of a century of applying his ideas into practice. Stalin did. That's the major reason why National and Christian Stalinists are rare and endemic, while Trotskyist … Okay. I'm not even going there.

The "Tax in Kind" was written by Lenin.

I think Trotsky's criticisms of Marxism–Leninism and the inherent problems therein were justified, but I honestly doubt whether Trotsky would have done any differently had he succeeded Lenin rather than Stalin. I like some of his ideas, and think Trotsky's theories and critiques can be useful for anarchists, but I wouldn't personally subscribe to Trotskyism. I don't know anywhere near enough about him to make an informed determination, however, so this is simply my impression from what little I know at this time.

Fuck Trotsky eternally for his anti-anarchism and decimation of the Free Territory of Ukraine, though. They should have negotiated an agreement or annexed them rather than terrorizing their own people.

t. ⓋⒶ☭ℎ+ =^^^^))))

Lenin wrote a lot of things.


He would've. His program was radically different from Stalin's. Banana republic, basically (well, wheat republic). As I've already mentioned: Trotsky did not believe in Russia's ability to become an industrial state independently. His financial policies are somewhat reminiscent of Reich: get a load of credits, militarize state, try to pay back loans by waging wars.

I'm not sure if he would've been capable of pulling through the 30s without Civil War 2.0, but he would've been hopelessly outmatched against the Reich.

Makhno's gangs were supported by kulaks. If anyone was terrorising people it was anarchists. There is a reason why other Anarchists were saying that Bolshevik prison became preferable to his Anarchism.

Not to mention, it was Makhno, who declared war on Soviets.

There wouldn't have BEEN a Third Reich had Trotsky been in a position to force KPD to form a united front.

No, you see, that non-aggression pact with Hitler literally saved Actual Existing Socialism. And doomed Nazism! Stalin is literally a master chess strategist just like Trumpler!

You probably never heard of Marxism right

Are you talking about Pabloism? Or the State Capitalist Trots?

honest question: how did this actually come about?

inb4 lurk moar

...

it was very equal earlier, I think sore tankies fucked up the poll

There was a radicalisation in the 60s and all these retards were swept up in the movement. When the movement collapsed in the 70s they all went back to being retards.

I'm going to admit that I'm not versed enough in theory to have an opinion. He seems bretty gud based on what I know, but his supporters always seem to be pseudo communists that are liberals in reality.
Then again I think we shouldn't dismiss third worldism entirely, there is some merit to it, but third worldists are the most obnoxious cunts I've ever dealt with.

...

Pretty much this. The KPD was doomed the moment the Battle of Warsaw ended and any chance of Red Army intervention in Germany was crushed.

...

yes