Trots talk shit on the Soviet Union much more than I feel any leftist should. More than anarchists, even. That's why I personally dislike them. Their influence in this regard has also been very damaging to the leftist cause in general. UK trots are a screaming example of this.
The're reputation as sectarians, a deserved one, also reflects how misguided and/or uncaring they are concerning and towards global leftism. Coming from a group who has as a central tenet the support of "world communism", the irony and hypocrisy of it becomes highlighted.
Zachary James
trots and anarchists, both never accomplishing anything, ever, whine over ML, which created the greates achievements of socialism in all of history and carried on for 40 more years through demontage by social democrats.
makes you think.
Josiah Edwards
They get in my fucking nerves when they start blabing about the ""stalinist"" burocracy(without an actual argument of course) and spreading literally Nazi/Liberal propaganda about the USSR and actually existing socialist countries(even the ones that not even Trotsky thought tha would stick), in the end most of then are a bunch of anti communists/liberals that do more damage to revolutionary left than good.
Adam Mitchell
they are lower tier, but it could be worse
Owen Young
What uni?
I don't know any other socialists at my school except this one autistic Maoist.
Jordan Ramirez
Trots are like Holla Forumstards. They endlessly complain about the thing they constantly take part in while not offering any serious position as to what they want differently.
Benjamin Mitchell
Trotskism advocated for a perpetual revolution, basically the precursor to the critical theory.
Feminism, special snowflakery and oppression olympics was endorsed by Trotsky.
That's why he got the icepick.
John Anderson
Which was more less nothing.
Not even a trot but this is pathetic tbqh
Bentley White
The problem with trots is that they fall into exactly the same kind of "great man theory" as MLs (i.e. Stalinists).
"Everything worked great until dear leader went away."
Here's the kicker: it's not even a question if Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao/Hohxa whomever, "planned" (because our party have some great insight into the wondrous mind of these living gods) to establish socialism, or if it really was socialism but was then taken over by the bureaucracy/revisionists/ultra-leftists/Stalinists whatever.
A dictatorship of the proletariat can, by it's very definition, not be overtaken by any shadowy minority, as it's very purpose is to tear down the domination of means of production by an elite.
If your "dictatorship of the proletariat" could be subverted in this manner, it never existed, the theory has proven itself a failure. It's not more complicated than that.
Nicholas Diaz
The ones that belive this shit are actually anti-communist. We defend Stalin for the ideas that he represented about socialism/transition to communism and the the evidences don't support the narratives of the crimes that he supposedly commited(a trots love to keep spread lies to push their agenda).
You're and idealist/ignorant in history if you belive that. The party members were the first voluntaries to fight and die agaist the Nazi, consequently leaving a great number of positions to fill, and after the war most of the new members were very weak in theory, and had let themself get persuaded by the revisionists(mainly Bukarins works), even with Stalin's last efforts to dissuade them(Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR).
