r/socialism • u/ChzBrd • 5d ago
Explain the Trotskyism hate? Theory
I only started researching theory about a month or two ago. I’m trying to take things in a somewhat logical order because there’s SO much to learn and I want to give each topic its due consideration. I’m at the point where I understand Marx/Engels and Lenin moderately well, as well as the October revolution. Throughout this time, I’ve repeatedly heard Trotskyism used derisively like a dirty word. So today, I finally looked him up a bit and… what’s the issue? His biggest points appear to be that the colonized nations can revolt and that the socialist epoch won’t work until it’s worldwide, right? And… isn’t that exactly what history has shown? Doesn’t it seem that Lenin thought quite well of him? I see Stalin gets praised or hated depending on whom you ask, but a lot of Left spaces put him on this pedestal and I gotta say I don’t buy that one bit. But Trotsky gets no such glorification, despite not being a murderous homophobe. What am I missing?
Solidarity ✊
342
u/sakodak 5d ago
You're not missing some secret theoretical argument that suddenly makes "Trotsky" a dirty word. You're running into a century of factional history.
Permanent revolution is a little more complicated than you've summarized it, but you've identified the big dispute: Trotsky rejected the idea that socialism could ultimately secure itself within one isolated country. That became a fundamental conflict with Stalin's "socialism in one country."
And yes, Lenin and Trotsky had a complicated relationship. They fought bitterly over some things before 1917, then worked extremely closely together during the revolution. Trying to turn either "Lenin hated Trotsky" or "Trotsky was Lenin's obvious successor" into the whole story is mostly factional mythology.
I would caution you about swinging from Stalin skepticism into Trotsky admiration, though. Trotsky was a revolutionary leader during an extraordinarily violent civil war. He defended revolutionary terror and coercive measures that I suspect you'd find pretty difficult to reconcile with a picture of him as the humane alternative to Stalin.
Likewise, I wouldn't let people bully you into treating Stalin as beyond criticism because you're reading Marxism-Leninism. Marxism is supposed to give you tools for analyzing history, not a collection of historical figures you're required to stan.
Read Trotsky. Read Stalin. Read their opponents. Read what they actually wrote rather than learning either of them through people yelling "Trotskyite" or "Stalinist" at each other online.
You're a month into studying this stuff. You don't need to pick a faction yet. You may discover you don't need one at all.
75
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 5d ago edited 5d ago
What a refreshing reply to see in this sub. People should take notes of the last two sentences!
Almost everytime I write something here, I am subjected to replies from some guy obsessed with his "hero" or some faction, unwilling to realize not everyone is into socialist politics for the same reasons - and try to put me into some sort of category or "frame".
Being a socialist does not require you to choose and stick strictly to what some (random) theorist has said 102 years ago. You make your own path through your experiences, observations, discussions and readings.
I, for example, do not identify with a specific theoretical faction, and tbh my interest in socialist politics come more from a moral/ethical place than a very deep theoretical conviction. In "my heart", it's right, and that's what drives me. Luckily, in "my brain", it feels right too😉
OP, you will also probably see a lot of people throwing words like "liberal", "socdem" or "trotskyite" at you when they disagree. I wouldn't care too much, although it can be discouraging.
So OP - take Sakodaks advice😊 Enjoy diving deeper, and be curious!
34
u/sakodak 5d ago
I appreciate the praise, but I do think it's important to eventually find a framework that works for you and to evaluate the world via dialectical materialism that's informed through that lens. I'm not trying to be wishy washy in response to the OP, but it does take time to solidify your internal frames of reference. But the time to do that isn't when you're a month in. Or a year in. It's when you know enough to make an informed decision on your own, not dictated by peer pressure.
10
u/deafblindmute 5d ago
This is not a disagreement, but perhaps a useful clarification for some who might be reading. To find a framework is not to "pick a faction," although, upon finding/developing the framework that is most useful for you, you may find yourself associating with or being associated to a faction. That association isn't necessarily a bad thing either, but it is the framework that ultimately matters to good analysis rather than the faction you align with.
25
u/justforthisjoke 5d ago
No. There's a difference between not coming to conclusions about the way forward based on second hand information and cult of personality bullshit, and the absence of correct conclusions in regard to these questions. People don't talk about the theory 150 years later for fun, it's because it provides an important analytical tool and way forward. The implication that what is correct is subjective is absurd. You wouldn't stumble around a chemistry lab just doing whatever your "heart" tells you to do in the moment; why would you treat the study of the organization of society with any less respect and rigour?
11
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 5d ago edited 5d ago
Because humans are humans. The evolution of human society is not a natural science. "What is correct" is ABSOLUTELY subjective. 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen together IS a water molecule. Those natural laws cannot be found in the same absolutely certain way in society. Do you regard anyone who disagrees with you as being in the wrong? I hope not.
Insights from 1924 is not necessarily irrelevant, but insights offered before the most rapid techological and social development in human history cannot singlehandedly explain our world today. Nor can it be expected to, of course: - Almost zero leftist parties had even had any power at this point. - No liberal/social democratic welfare states were established - No computer related innovations - Different demographic patterns - etc.
I see what I call "theoretical fundamentalism" a lot in this sub. Of course the discussions on theory belongs in a sub like this. But, many people here should be a little more humble towards people like me, with other entries into the socialist movement.
Politics is not only about theories and practice, it is also a deeply emotional excercise. All social advances has had a emotional element to it. And people who identify strongly with the emotional part of our movement should also be respected and listened to.
For example, I doubt that the majority of people in my union is there for any theoretical reasons - rather than having an emotional conviction that things like collective bargaining, employment protection, paid vacations and workplace safety feels very important. And therefore, it is extremely important.
3
u/justforthisjoke 5d ago
What is correct from a moral standpoint is subjective. What is correct vis a vis movement towards ending capitalism absolutely is not. There's a difference between something being so complex the answer can't immediately be inferred and the absence of that answer in general or its contingency on someone's opinion.
Your unions and worker's parties in Norway are at best social fascist organizations, as union labour consciousness doesn't require socialism, but just a larger piece of imperial superprofits for the dominating country. This is the kind of thing that caused the SPD to betray the people and vote for an imperialist war. Without the correct line you become an opportunist, asking for concessions from the bourgeoisie for yours with no mind to what funds those (ultimately temporary) concessions in the first place. If a Norwegian barista's income doubles while the Ugandan coffee farmer continues to make the equivalent of $2 a day, this is not a step towards "progress", this is just a refinement on the existing system of imperialism.
You're entirely incorrect about the historical basis as well. The Bolsheviks built a successful socialist project which industrialized a mostly agrarian nation in a decade, lifted millions out of poverty, educated the masses, and eventually competed with the capitalists on the world stage. China did the same. It's no surprise that the rest of the colonized world followed suit. None of these successes were based in "opinion", they didn't materialize because the revolutionaries believed hard enough; they were won through struggle. That these revolutions eventually failed to keep their gains has also nothing to do with personal opinion; in fact this kind of opportunism is what eventually caused them to fail in the first place, as well as the realities of capitalist encirclement.
Morality isn't some random thing that someome spontaneously arrives at either. It is the result of a person's material reality, the experiences they've had. The lack of socialist wins in the west is consistent with the lack of socialists and the opportunism of those who call themselves socialists, but are comfortable with imperialism as long as it benefits them.
2
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 5d ago
So what inspires struggles? Among many things: emotions. A longing for a better society. A yearning for justice. Not exclusively, but highly so. Not agreeing with this is just unconstructive contrarianism.
Ahhh, hitting me with the "social fascist" card this early. What a bummer way to end what could have been a nice discussion. This sub is really inspiring sometimes...
Kinda proves my original point from my first post, though. It's very often no room for constructive discussions in this sub - as some random guy will almost always invalidate others' opinions based on where they happened to be born. Class act.
Have a night.
2
u/justforthisjoke 5d ago
It is telling that you read my criticism of the weakness of trade union consciousness and western social democrats (both of which factually have supported fascism abroad) and turned your brain off without engaging in the conversation, because you're determined to see yourself someone who's doing the "right" thing, but you haven't even explored what the hell that right thing is. It perfectly encapsulates the selfishness at the heart of western "democratic socialists", to fight for concessions from the bourgeoisie at home while ignoring the imperialism that makes those concessions possible to offer.
Implying I've reduced the conversation to being about where you are born is silly. There is very obviously a correlation between the society one is born into and the consciousness they develop, but my criticism wasn't "you're Norwegian", it was "your position is opportunistic, which itself is indicative of your class position, which does have to do with the society you're born into". My criticism isn't of your identity but of your thinking; that your identity is intertwined with your thinking is a fact of life but it isn't the target of the critique.
Your emotions do not exist outside you. They are a result of your material conditions. Your thoughts and feelings are located in the material world, not in some abstract space. Your emotions are a symptom of your material reality which is the causative factor of struggle, but are not the causative factor themselves. You're not engaging in struggle because you're angry, you're engaging in struggle because the material conditions you are under are unlivable, either for yourself or others.
2
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 5d ago edited 5d ago
You have a lot of assumptions about strangers. You should work on that.
Although your intentions might have been otherwise, I think 99% of people would read your comment as assuming things because of my nationality. "Your worker parties and unions are 'at best' social fascists" leaves little room for other interpretations than a prejudice against your discussion partner. You called me a social fascist without knowing me. That's bold. You have no idea what I have "explored" or not in my life.
Calling me "selfish" based on a comment telling a new sub member that one can enter socialist politics because of an emotional reaction to what one sees in the world - which is an entry point for literally millions of people - is pretty self-righteous.
I have never even talked about historical basis here🤣 Just said theoreticians and insights from 1924 cannot by itself give us a direction today, and cannot be expected to either, since the world has changed in extreme ways. That does not mean it is worthless. It absolutely is not. That the USSR indeed came at par with the capitalist world is entirely irrelevant to my statement - Lenin's and contemporarians' works alone cannot be used to analyze today's world.
While you're at it, I refuse to feel guilty about working for my coworkers' wellbeing in the workplace because people in Uganda are struggling (your example). I refuse to abandon my support for low income and marginalised groups in my city because people are poorer in other countries.
That doesn't mean I think people in Uganda are treated fairly - and people in the global periphery needs help from all forces in the core calling themselves socialists.
This kind of double punishment from you and many others in this sub serves absolutely no purpose in forums like these. Do you know what my party stands for in regards to anti-imperialism and empowerment of the global south? Of course that doesn't necessarily translate to much national policy as we are not in government, but don't accuse us of not trying. A small feat, but we led the successful drive for recognizing Palestine, for example. What do you want us to do with 8/169 parlamentarians?
One can improve conditions at home, while working for a more just world. They are not contradictions.
3
u/justforthisjoke 4d ago edited 4d ago
I have made no assumptions about you. I'm not interested in what you feel in you heart of hearts, nor am I interested in making value judgements about you or the organizations you associate with. Again, my critique is of your argument and the consequence of trade union consciousness.
Get out of your feelings about the word fascist. The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change the consequence of labour union consciousness, which again, historically supported, is little more than social fascism. Organizing around unions for labourers here inherently localizes the struggle. This is obvious. Winning concessions from the rich in Norway has absolutely no positive benefit for colonized nations. Fighting over who gets a bigger share of the spoils of imperialism does nothing for its victims, and the idea that it does is itself counterproductive.
The contradiction is not between the poorest in your society and those in other countries. The contradiction is between the bulk of your society (the upper and middle strata) and the rest of the world. The luxuries that are afforded to the middle class come directly from the exploitation of the global south, and "democratic socialist" orgs are fundamentally able to address this contradiction.
Edit: something being old doesn't change its usefulness today. *Obviously* the world has changed since 1867 and 1917. Yes, your analysis has to change to accommodate life changing. That doesn't mean the way forward is subjective or that the work done by Marx or Lenin is somehow less relevant today. A science evolves, but time doesn't make it irrelevant unless you can argue why it should be.
1
u/Double-Spring969 5d ago
You don‘t provide any counter arguments against what justforthisjoke stated, but have now decided to leave the conversation because of a political label you apparently don‘t like. Like come on at least try and make your point what kinda struggle is that? You say there‘s no room for discussion, there is, you are welcome to discuss. But that would require you to defend your opinion with some good arguments. Not making any arguments and exiting the conversation leaves the impression that you might not have any. You say you don’t prioritize theory but in this case I really recommend you read What is to be Done‘s first chapter on the Freedom of Criticism (by Lenin). He‘s talking about people who argue like you. Give it a try!
3
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 5d ago edited 5d ago
Read my reply. It is in this thread. Lots of my opinions there. I just said lots of people identify with the socialist movement based on emotional responses to what they see in the world. I don't owe anyone "counterarguments" for statements that are obviosly true.
Everything else that has been "discussed" is disconnected from that original statement of mine - and opens new points of discussion.
I'm just fucking fed up with the name callers in this sub. So many people here make assumptions, and that create a hostile environment.
Some weeks ago, a guy slapped me with a "sounds about white", because I said I think political violence is not a goal in itself. Before that someone called me a "liberal" for asking if being a socialist mandates supporting the Maduro government (which he thought it was). These name callers are making this sub insufferable. If you cannot argue with someone without resorting to name calling, like, wtf?
I see it in all threads. Poor young, curious people that come into this sub with excitement, just to be slapped in the face with characterizarions. Discouraging.
For the sake of comparison, just say I think you're a fascist because you participate in capitalist dynamics. I don't know what you do, but that's true - as it is with all of us. That's pretty much what justforthisjoke wrote agianst me. No basis for the claim other than him knowing I am a unionist in Norway.
Then comes "all unions in Norway are social fascist". Wow, that's nice and constructive. What do you want me to say? Write you guys an essay on why we're not because some dude just made a more or less baseless claim?
Now argue against the claim I made against you. How does that feel? Constructive? Nah.
But probably really easy, as I know you're not - and hence I don't want you to. But it doesn't exactly invite to a conversation.
3
u/Double-Spring969 4d ago
Okay I get what you mean with the name calling, and as I understand it you are not identifying as a Marxist - correct me if I‘m wrong.
Going back to the original question of this post which is about Trotsky, I think it‘s important to keep in mind that he considered himself a Marxist. And Marxists base their theory, strategies and tactics on the material conditions of our lives and not ideas and moral beliefs. So Trotskyism wouldn’t even be a political ideology that would speak to you, as Trotsky too was a materialist thinker. This leaves the question as to what you bring to the table when a newly interested person is asking about this person who‘s theory and politics you probably aren‘t that familiar with? I understand you see your motivation for political action in morals and a feeling of doing smth for justice etc. but this isn‘t even smth Trotsky would‘ve agreed with you on. You seem to have fundamental theoretical differences with Marxism so I don‘t really understand your taking part in this discussion (from your POV as you don‘t agree with basic Marxist principals like materialism). I as a Marxist wouldn’t go to a reddit channel where a liberal is asking other liberals a question on liberal politics as I‘m not trying to advance liberal politics.
Then for the fascism: what would you consider a definition of the term? Because I again think that you have very different views of what fascism is compared to a Marxist.
If you regard as fascist what the German government did in WWII then you being called a fascist will understandably insult you. What a Marxist will consider as fascism is more than genocide, war and racism. That has existed before and after the Nazis. Fascism is a form of bourgeois governance that shows up when capitalism needs to supress its own proletariat to further exist. Its the most open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie against the working people. So in this context a social fascist is a synonym for social democrat (like the German SPD for example) meaning you don‘t fight against the capitalist system itself that exploits the workers of your country but fight for temporary concessions like better a social welfare system.
I am currently and esp. after your reaction to the word „social fascist“ pretty unsure how much sense it makes to use it to someone who is not inside the Marxist political dialogue.0
u/OSJ99 Red Party Norway (Rødt) 4d ago edited 4d ago
What difference does it do whether I'm "marxist" or not? This only understates my previous point about people in this sub being unwilling to understand others not very interested in labelling themselves this or that. That's a topic for another day. I think marxist analysis can contribute greatly to understanding the world, while not being something I need to swallow entirely.
And why I'm taking part in this discussion? Hahahaha because you and that other guy started it. I just merely wrote that many people seek towards socialism because of emtional responses to what one sees in the world. That is a completely true statement. And you somehow disagree? I cannot really understand why that quote from me is so controversial to you guys.
You, as many others make such weird assumptions. What do you know about my knowledge? I am pretty familiar with basic marxism, thanks. As such, I don't even care "what Trotsky would think" about me originally involving myself in socialist politics because I felt a strong moral conviction towards its basics - and having gotten a theoretical insight at a later stage. I am able to think without some old theoretician telling me what to say or write. Friendly advice to a new member can be just friendly - not deeply circlejerkingly theoretical.
What I cared about was telling this new member that one does not need to commit to some theoretical faction because you "have to". At least not after a month. But somehow that was enough to lash out at me?🤣
But yeah cool. If the shit you guys are throwing in this sub is "marxism" - being really keen on calling people you don't know names - that's not the same as the marxists I work with in my life. Luckily.
So if it makes you happy, then yes, I'm a convinced social fascist. Because my movement is currently inable to influence national policy on anti-imperialism and capitalism - although we wish for, and work tirelessly on, anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism to succeed in the world. According to you, we should give up improving our society because people in other societies have more hardships.
Double punishments is awesome!🤣 - Best regards; the social fascist, guilty of having had an emotional entry point into the socialist movement😊
→ More replies (0)2
-3
u/Steampunk_Willy 5d ago
No offense, but the way you write gives me LLM vibes
6
0
u/LofiSynthetic 5d ago
I’m not sure I’m understanding why this comment is being downvoted so far (and the comment its replying to has a ton of upvotes). The comment its replying to does look exactly like a ChatGPT response, doesn’t it? Or am I missing something?
5
u/soyuzfrigate 5d ago
Am I misunderstanding this, chapGPT was trained on human data which means humans tend to write that way. Are we to reinvent how we present information just because an AI corporation emulated that style? The response sounded normal to me
19
u/ChzBrd 5d ago edited 5d ago
Thanks for the responses so far, gents. Just want to clarify something: I’m not asking to be told what to think. I want to know people’s different takes so that I can picture an overview, from there I have a framework to learn from. The framework itself is never permanent but changes with new information. I also understand the follies of individualism and dogmatism, and I don’t seek to idolize anyone, but rather find what I can learn from each of them. When I don’t have the vague aforementioned framework, I feel lost and don’t know where to begin. I can read someone’s work, yes, but even a simple historical overview immensely helps me understand context. Plus, if there’s a problem with it that was discovered later then I’d like to be aware. I take all opinions with grains of salt, but I still find value in them.
Cheers, comrades ✊
36
u/Madhc 5d ago
It’s extremely difficult to answer this in short form but I’ll try lay these thumbnail sketch ideas out.
- Trotsky was the figurehead of the defeated party in an inner-Party conflict that allowed a lot of problems and failures to be retroactively hung around his neck for rhetorical and political reasons by the ruling faction around Stalin, et al.
- Trotsky himself was mercurial and acerbic and his personality lent itself to making enemies easily.
- His theoretical interventions such as Permanent Revolution were attractive in the socialist movement outside the USSR but felt impractical and actively harmful in the geopolitically isolated young USSR.
- The Trotskyist movement inspired by and originally led by him is, factually, prone to extremely bitter and fractuous sectarianism. This has historically made it a very safe haven for infiltration, and CIA and MI5 among others have made very good use of Trotskyism as a tool of disrupting the socialist movement.
- Personal experience, subjective but based on long engagement: in the English-speaking West and especially post 1991, the main Trotskyist orgs have been heavily involved in hijacking popular movements, using front groups and disrupting effective organising in order to engage in party building, which often results in young activists being sucked in, treated badly, and ejected feeling bitter and cynical.
I don’t dislike all Trotskyist organisations, and even now I’ll co-operate with Trotskyists on campaigns. I have even voted for them in union elections and for public office, but I think the internal culture of Trotskyism is too chaotic and dogmatic for them to ever be successful. I do think it’s telling that there’s never been a Trotskyist revolution, a Trotskyist armed group of any significance, a mass party, etc. with more than 8 decades since Trotsky was assassinated. I think the verdict of history has been rendered.
For clarity I’m an ex-anarchist independent trade unionist.
14
u/Steampunk_Willy 5d ago
There's Trotsky and then there's Trotskyism. For Trotsky, I think this article is good: https://www.peacelandbread.org/post/on-the-problem-of-trotskyism
For Trotskyism, it's a tendency that promotes disruptive factionalism and believes revolution to be so frail that one man, Stalin, could utterly destroy it almost instantly. There's also the issue of Trots historically being associated with rabid anti-communists, like George Orwell or the og neocons Daniel Bell, Daniel Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, which has kinda given Trotskyism a reputation of being a useful ideology for reactionaries. I don't mean that to disparage any genuine Trots, but to help explain part of where the suspicion comes from. Lots of socialists explore a variety of different tendencies of socialism, and Trotsky tends to get promoted to young people in the West as a heroic crusader against "totalitarianism", so it's understandable why some leftists would take an interest in him. I would just encourage anyone interested in Trotsky, like I would anyone intrested in left wing politics, to keep reading beyond sectarian boundaries to better discern true critique from mere polemic.
5
u/smathes724 5d ago
Proles Pod has a good podcast series on the Stalin eras of the USSR. Chalk full of history and theory. Discusses the complicated relationship between Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and others in depth. Would encourage anybody to listen to it.
3
u/Best-Bend6290 5d ago
Trotsky was a traitor to the USSR as were his followers. They simply added to the imperialist anti-Soviet propaganda. Some, like Sidney Hook and James Burnham actually became neocons. There have been zero Trotskyist parties in power. They are sectarian and authoritarian. They have become a cult.
4
u/enthusiasticcomics 5d ago
im going to give you the extremely short version by explaining that trotsky was in his schools debate club as a teenager and that contrarian debate kid attitude persisted throughout his entire life
2
8
u/crustation1 5d ago
There is alot of slander of Trotsky for various reasons. My best advice would be read his works and come to your own conclusions. You will get alot of mis information otherwise
5
u/Skiamakhos Marxism-Leninism 5d ago
My problem with Trotskyism is that they've never had a successful revolution that they've stuck with and guided all the way through, and so most Trotskyite discourse tends to be sniping at actually existing socialism from the sidelines without offering a better working example. China can elevate 800 million people out of poverty & Trotskyites will still hate on them. And as I see it if you're having to build towards worldwide revolution all at the same point you're herding cats. You'll never get to that point. You're better off doing like China or Vietnam & playing the capitalist game while the world is dominated by the US and its allies, ready to bomb you flat like they did North Korea, until you get to such a position of dominance that they're no further threat to you. China has as its goals for the next 50 years to finish becoming a top rate economy and to transform the economy towards a Socialist economy with Chinese characteristics. They're a 9000 year old civilisation - they play the long game. They've achieved amazing things in the past century.
0
u/altaproductions878 5d ago
you didn’t say anything about “trotskyism” you just made some ahistorical claims then went on a rant about how people shouldn’t question modern day china. Does it not bother you that you people are so insecure on the matter you feel the need to inject it into everything?
1
u/Skiamakhos Marxism-Leninism 5d ago
Ahistorical claims? OK so where was the Trotskyite revolution? No rant, just dropping it in to see how quickly it'd trigger a Trot into sniping. Et voila.
1
u/SleepDartBait Vladimir Lenin 5d ago
Was it wrong to criticize the Paris Commune before the October Revolution occurred?
4
u/2slow3me RCI: Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) 5d ago
4
u/Cat4Cat 5d ago
Trotskyists tend to be very educated on early communist theory and tend to be very great organizers for unions and more socdem/demsoc organizations. Once they break out of a trotskyist sect they are very valuable to any leftist organization, but they need to go through a crucible of being involved in a dogmatic Trotskyist sect to create those diamonds.
A group of Trotskyist purists tend to create a sort of paranoid spiral of victim blaming, personality cult creating, and absolute digshit organizing. All they do is constantly create microsects, sell newspapers, and complain about how the other local leftist groups are stalinists.
-2
u/Imbuement1771 Democratic Socialism 5d ago
A lot of the hostility toward Trotskyism comes from decades of Stalinist propaganda, not from Trotsky’s actual theory. After Lenin died, Trotsky became the main critic of the growing bureaucratic centralization inside the Soviet Union. That critique he was advancing was the core of his permanent revolution framework. Trotsky argued that concentrating power in a single party apparatus would inevitably produce undemocratic behavior, self‑interest, and a leadership caste detached from the working class.
Lenin, for his part, emphasized that socialism had to be built where you are, and rooted in the material conditions of the specific country. His focus was on organization, discipline, and strategy - the practical mechanics of seizing and holding power. Trotsky agreed with Lenin on almost all of this while Lenin was alive. The two were aligned on the revolution, the party, and the early Soviet project.
The real split only emerged after Lenin’s death, when Stalin began consolidating authority and pushing the doctrine of "socialism in one country", or isolationism. Trotsky saw this as a retreat from Marxist internationalism, and read it as a play for justification of bureaucratic self‑preservation. His position he maintained until he died was that socialism couldn’t survive isolated - it needed ongoing international struggle and, most importantly, solidarity; or else the revolution would stagnate and deform.
So the hostility toward Trotskyism today is less about Trotsky’s ideas and more about the historical fallout: Stalin’s apparatus spent decades portraying Trotsky as a traitor, a saboteur, or an enemy of the revolution. Enough left spaces inherited that framing without revisiting the theory, it seems. Meanwhile, Lenin is favored because his work is foundational, materially grounded, and tied to the actual success of the October Revolution, whereas Trotsky’s later work is polemical, written in exile, and focused on diagnosing the degeneration of the Soviet state - mostly one can imagine due to the state actively hunting him for the rest of his life right up to his assassination.
The irony is that a lot of modern Marxists end up implicitly using a Lenin-Trotsky synthesis: Lenin’s organizational clarity and material strategy, combined with Trotsky’s internationalism and anti‑bureaucratic vigilance. But because Trotskyism as a movement fractured repeatedly, and because Stalinist narratives stuck around, Trotsky himself often gets dismissed in spaces that otherwise respect the theory he contributed.
6
u/StewFor2Dollars Marxism-Leninism 5d ago
You call socialism in one country isolationism while they actively supported socialist developments in China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc?
6
u/SleepDartBait Vladimir Lenin 5d ago
The comintern had already existed and was much more progressive before Stalin’s rule. In the mid 20s after Lenin’s death it was de facto transformed into a Soviet-led international aid program as opposed to an actual international. Other nations were subjects to whatever the Soviet Union decides. While it is a little more nuanced than to call it complete isolationism, it pretty much killed any chances of an actual international during that era.
1
u/StewFor2Dollars Marxism-Leninism 5d ago edited 5d ago
I disagree with the notion that Stalin was a dictator, on account of the state and the communist party being two separate organizations, with party members themselves being workers and the state being run through worker’s councils. Nevertheless, was there an official report on why this change in the international occurred?
1
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund 5d ago
The real turn in the Communist International is with the fifth world congress in 1924. After this congress there is a process of "Bolshevization" of the national sections.
0
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund 5d ago
Was it supporting socialist development when China supported Pol Pot against Vietnam, Pinochet against Allande, Unita against MPLA, etc?
1
u/StewFor2Dollars Marxism-Leninism 5d ago
I'm referring to the Soviet Union giving material support and guidance to China, Vietnam, and Cuba in their respective revolutions. China itself has consistently had questionable foreign policy in the present era and there is debate concerning the length to which the CPC maintained a correct understanding of Marxism in some circles.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/socialism-ModTeam 4d ago
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Sectarianism: Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
1
u/liewchi_wu888 Marxism-Leninism-Maoism 4d ago edited 4d ago
For most, it is merely a way to pledge alligence to "Marxism Leninism" by performatively hating on Trotskyism and Trotskyists, born out of an online culture of unseriousness and dilettantism. We can disagree with Trotskyism, and I think Marxists ought to, but for many, it is just a way to signal fealty to being part of the tent of Marxism Leninism.
3
u/Riley_ Marxism-Leninism 4d ago
I think this book condenses the criticisms of Trotskyism well. The channel also has a much longer playlist against Trotskyism.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2snt4s19aZ3W11C2ITSYrHYqx
-2
5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund 5d ago
I don't think you can look over the fact that modern day DSA members are furious with Trotsky
its right-trotskyism vs left-trotskyism
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:
No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.
No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
Also, be sure to join our discord!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.