Within Cuba, debate and comparative experimentation had been encouraged. But outside Cuba, Guevara’s critical analysis had led to accusations that he was variously a revisionist, a Trotskyist and a Maoist, name-calling which he regarded as dangerous politicking, machinations aimed to disrupt the tenuous fraternity of socialist countries and censure debate. One of the most annoying sources of these accusations was from Trotskyists who tried to compare his analysis with Trotsky’s criticisms. Distancing himself from Trotskyism, Guevara said:

There are some useful things that can be taken from Trotsky’s ideas. I believe that the fundamental things which Trotsky based himself on were erroneous, and that his later behaviour was wrong and even obscure in the final period. The Troskyists have contributed nothing to the revolutionary movement anywhere and where they did most, which was in Peru, they ultimately failed because their methods were bad. That comrade Hugo Blanco, personally a man of great sacrifice, based (his position) on a set of erroneous ideas and will necessarily fail.

from Helen Yaffe's "Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution"

aerdil posted:

trotskyism is simply a more strident varient of liberal anti-communism, hth

tears posted:

interesting, but what is trotskyism?

Very carefully

tears posted:

interesting points everyone, very good, but what i'm really looking to find out is "what is trotskyism?" thanks

According to my extensive research, it's uhhh. A tane orb.

What Trotskyism Means

An idealist definition of a “trotskyist” would focus on whether or not an individual or group like Leon Trotsky, read his work with respect and sided with Trotsky over Stalin in the 1920’s and 1930’s. A materialist definition of a “trotkyist” on the other hand would ask rather whether or not a group acted essentially like Trotsky acted and if its strategy was essentially like that of Trotsky, i.e., was objectively “Trotskyite”. Taking a materialist approach one would be considered a trotskyist if one acting like Trotsky even if one liked Stalin and hated Trotsky, while conversely one would not be considered a trotskyist if one did not acted like Trotsky and have a strategy like that of Trotsky, even if one liked Trotsky, read his works, etc. In EXamining various groups and currents we must be very careful to always use a materialist definition, and not be confused by verbal disclaimers, genealogies or posters on people’s walls.

The essence of what the Marxist-Leninist tradition including Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Ho Chi Minh have meant by “trotskyism” is a left-adventurist and dogmatic analysis which condemns all existing socialist countries and people’s democracies as not really socialist, being run by bureaucrats or perhaps state capitalists acting against the interests of the working people, and which likewise condemns all massive popular, progressive, or Communist led movements as being insufficiently revolutionary or in the process of selling out the masses in the interests of a bureaucracy, either local or located in the USSR, China, etc. Trotskyism differs from the anarchists who make similar claims about all progressive and socialist movements and regimes by claiming adherence to the principles of Leninism, endorsing the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and organizing themselves more or less according to Leninist principles. This is the essence of trotskyism and the sole criteria by which a group or current should be categorized as “trotskyist.” Applying this criteria to groups like the Progressive Labor Party in the U.S. which condemn China, the USSR, Cuba and ail progressive and socialist regimes as well as the CPUSA, RCP, CL, SWP and all other groups in the U.S., all progressive, socialist or national liberation movements in Third World countries, and all progressive and Communist lead movements in the advanced capitalist countries, as selling out the masses, tools of the Soviet or Chinese bureaucracies etc., are pure trotskyist groups. PLP sees itself as the only truly revolutionary group in the world. On the other hand a splinter group from the Socialist Workers Party (the main Trotskyist group in the U.S.), the Workers World Party and its youth group Youth Against War and Fascism, gives basic support to Third World national liberation movements and socialist regimes such as those of the Cubans, Vietnamese, Angolans, etc., and (at least at last look) considered China and other socialist countries to be socialist. Thus in spite of their positive attitude about Leon Trotsky they can not be considered to be “trotskyists.”

A secondary but central characteristic of “trotskyism” is its historical position on the role of the working class, national bourgeoisies and nationalism in general in the revolutionary struggle, especially in Third World countries, but also in Third World communities in the advanced capitalist countries. Trotsky’s position, generally adopted by trotskyist groups is that the working class is the principle revolutionary force in Third World countries as well as in the advanced countries and that both nationalism and the national bourgeoisie are necessarily reactionary forces. The position developed by the Comintern in the 1920’s and endorsed by both Soviet and Chinese Communists is that nationalism is often a progressive force in Third World countries and should be utilized to mobilize the masses of people to get rid of imperialism and begin a popular democratic (“new democratic”) revolution and further that the local capitalists who are oppressed by foreign imperialism can be allied with (but with the working class and peasantry playing the leading role in this alliance) in getting rid of imperialism. Once again the position of the PLP is identical to the classical trotskyist position on this question, while that of the WWP-YAWF is in conflict.

In general “trotskyism” is characterized by a dogmatic or rationalist theory of knowledge, inflexibility in strategy and tactics, hyper sectarianism in relations to other groups and overbearingness in their style of work. Rather than developing their theory and strategy through the dialectic of theory and practice in the manner described so well by Mao-Tse-tung’s On Practice, trotskyists read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin as a monk would read the Bible (as sacred dogma) then use it to criticize the inadequacies in the world, specifically the imperfect nature of various socialist countries and movements and the backwardness of the peasants, workers, and other progressive forces which do not live up to what they think Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin said about them. If countries and movements and classes do not live up to the ideal standards of Trotsky than so much the worse for them.

Trotskyists almost never learn from practice, their strategies and tactics almost never change as a result of trial and error and sum up. Instead changes in their positions occur through intellectualist dogmatic debate of the order of who is really loyal to the true Fourth International (or to the Third), who really has the correct interpretation of what Leon Trotsky (or Stalin) really really meant. Because of the rationalism of their theory of knowledge and the corresponding lack of and often distain for practice trotskyist groups constantly split into ever smaller groups all of which maintain hostile relations with all other trotskyist groups. The idea that correct thought, rather than current practice, will decide the issues dividing them is pervasive. Trotskyites often focus most of their energy on fighting each other rather than on actually organizing the working class. Because of their frequent obsession with ideological conversion, rather than with, mass struggles, trotskyists are often most overbearing in their attempts to badger people into endorsing their various lines. Out of fairness it must be noted that not all trotskyists groups share equally in this later categorizations, and hence that they are not defining characteristics of trotskyism. For example, the Socialist Workers Party works in many mass struggles (although some would argue only in order to recruit members) and the International Socialists seem to be rooted in the working class (if only because many of their former student members have taken factory jobs). The most prominent examples of pure trotskyist groups in the U.S. are the Spartacus League and the Progressive Labor Party.

nobody tell garbage twitter

Why is the revolutionary left in such a mess today, despite the economic problems of the last decade, the crises of many neoliberal states, the enormous size of the global waged working class, the potential power of the trade union movement and the signs of revival in left politics? The answers to why the Marxist left is in such a state are comprehensively hammered home in this collection of essays. The book is a tour de force history of the revolutionary left over the past one hundred years. The short answer is: Stalinism.

But the syphilis of Stalinism is not only about the states that were or still are ruled by Stalinists. It is also about how the ideology of Stalinism has taken root even among the anti-Stalinist and social democratic left. Sloughing off this Stalinism is an essential prerequisite for reviving the authentic Marxist left.

{...}

Matgamna itemises the bitter array of failures in the years after the Second World War. Among the litany of terrible errors were: • Support for North Korea’s war in 1950 • Failure to support the East German workers uprising in 1953 • Uncritical support for the Vietnamese Stalinists • Uncritical support for the Castro Stalinists in Cuba after 1960 • Soft backing for Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution • Opposition to Israel’s right to exist after the 1967 war • Backing Catholic chauvinism in Northern Ireland • Opposition to the UK joining the European Union from 1971 • Fantasies about the murderous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia • Support for clerical-fascist theocracy in Iran from 1979 • Support for Russia’s murderous war in Afghanistan in 1980 • Support for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands in 1982 • Backing Iran against Iraq in their sub-imperial conflict during the 1980s • Siding with Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait 1990-91 • Support for Serbia’s assault on the Kosovars in 1999 • Softness and refusing to condemn Al Qaeda in 2001 • Support for Saddam in the 2003 war • Uncritical backing of Islamist Sunni and Shia militias in Iraq, even as they slaughtered workers.

Matgamna eviscerates the justifications used by sections of the left for these stances. He is scathing about the “anti-imperialism of fools”, a species of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” that leads to support for despotism under the cover of anti-Americanism. He also denounces “left antisemitism”, defined as the exceptional denial of fundamental national rights to Jewish people (including the right to their own state) and demonisation of all Jewish people for the crimes of the Israeli state.

Sloughing off these rationalisations for reactionary politics is essential for renewing the revolutionary left. Matgamna’s descriptions of the practices and ideologies of the post-Stalinist left are often thought-provoking. The left Stalinist embalming of Lenin is described as the work of a “Leninolator” and of “Lenin-olatry”. The Stalinist picture of the world is “totalitarian utopianism” and the former Trotskyists who capitulated to Stalin “self-depoliticised ex-Bolshevik social engineers”. Liberal interventionist are dubbed “mañana third campists”, their “socialism” always for the distant tomorrow.

imagining being this person, imagining being the authour of this book

xipe posted:

Stalin’s regime, which still sought to present itself as the political continuity of the 1917 socialist revolution, portrayed Trotsky as the agent of British imperialism, German fascism, and the Japanese Mikado. Putin’s government, which strives to represent itself as the resurrection of Holy Russia, portrays Trotsky as the Judeo-Bolshevik anti-Christ. In fact, the main poster advertising the series consists of a frightening image of Trotsky dressed in black and with his eyes concealed by sunglasses in which a hell-like fire is reflected. Attached to his chest is a bloodstained cross.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/25/tele-n25.html

honestly this is probably the only thing ive ever seen that made trotsky sound cool and not lame

: • Support for North Korea’s war in 1950 • Failure to support the East German workers uprising in 1953 • Uncritical support for the Vietnamese Stalinists • Uncritical support for the Castro Stalinists in Cuba after 1960 • Soft backing for Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution • Opposition to Israel’s right to exist after the 1967 war • Backing Catholic chauvinism in Northern Ireland • Opposition to the UK joining the European Union from 1971 • Fantasies about the murderous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia • Support for clerical-fascist theocracy in Iran from 1979 • Support for Russia’s murderous war in Afghanistan in 1980 • Support for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands in 1982 • Backing Iran against Iraq in their sub-imperial conflict during the 1980s • Siding with Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait 1990-91 • Support for Serbia’s assault on the Kosovars in 1999 • Softness and refusing to condemn Al Qaeda in 2001 • Support for Saddam in the 2003 war • Uncritical backing of Islamist Sunni and Shia militias in Iraq, even as they slaughtered workers.

hell yeah

gay_swimmer posted:

I was watching this show Babylon Berlin and one of the main characters was a communist which is cool but to make them sympathetic to the audience they made them a Trotskyite. Minus five stars

They did make the trots a bunch of bumbling idiots so it is an accurate portrayal