trotskyism

First and foremost, this is a post completely damning Leon Trotsky, and everything he has ever stood for.
In which i will give points and explain briefly on each point, feedback is appreciated, and shabazz if you are out there somewhere, eat your fucking heart you out you reactionary.








1. Trotskyism's roots lay in the days of the first Russian Revolution (1905), in which general unrest led to social upheaval. The first reaction of the state was martial law, nothing new. How ever, it is known that during those days, Leon Trotsky was elected to the duma, thus turning the entire movement, into, idle pointless squabble.
2. The theory of permanent revolution, do i really even have to say?
Not to mention this "theory" sounds eerily similar to Hitler's plan of a thousand year reich.
Birds of a feather shit together.
3. According directly to Trotsky's dialect, he is in direct contradiction to almost ALL of Karl Marx's theories. Leon Trotsky often regarded himself as an orthodox Marxist, however it is painfully obvious now, that he is not.
4. Trotsky did not even believe in spontaneous workers' organization, he believed that the entire working class were, easily manipulated pawns, in his authoritarian chess game. In short Trotsky said, "dont worry 'comrades' just let the party take care of you, and you will never have another problem." I think you can easily guess the ending.
5. The countless amounts of "Internationals" are getting frustrating and futile, if you think Hugo Chavez is worth defending, then ya, your probably not to happy right now. But the fact is, Trotskyism is system not based on workers and friends, it is a system of bosses, owners, and peasants.

Nothing will ever be able to clear Leon Trotsky's name in my book.

feed back is appreciated, and please add as much as possible.

Well, he was right about the fact that, peasants are easily manipulable puppets.

I'm not a big fan of Trotskyism, i.e. "permanent" revolutions, which would then require "permanent" vanguards.
I can take Leninism as an intellectual/theoretical tradition, but that's as far as I can go.

EDIT: I should make one little point, and it's very minor but I feel like I've got to say it. Jesus, I would say that it's not the peasantry that Trotsky was talking about - because in Marxist orthodoxy, the peasants are a very distinct and different class than the proletariat. Trotsky was, as any other Marxist or Socialist or Communist would, referring to an industrial worker whose labor power is rented to a Capitalist employer. Now Marx would probably say that the peasant class is stupid, lazy, not really good for bringing forth the epoch of Socialism. However, the proletariat is supposed to be an intelligent sort of worker, and thus - in my opinion - has no business being bothered about by some obscure political apparatus like the kind that Trotsky proposed.

As another slight aside, Zach, I am in complete agreement with what you say about how Trotskyism opposes the idea of self-organizing, and thus can't be inherently Marxist. I frankly regard that as not only a fundamental principle of Marxism, but a fundamental principle of Socialism itself. The whole idea - in Marxism - that a revolution that will lead the world into an entirely new economic order will just spontaneously occur purely by the exploitative conditions in the fields, factories, and workshops (I hope you caught this not-so subtle Kropotkin reference.) is perhaps the most crucial element of Marxist thinking; it's at the heart of dialectical materialism. So to make the claim that this type of spontaneous revolutionary activity will not occur and thus needs some political body to agitate such action seems to me to be quite counterposed to what Marx was talking about.

Now whether or not Marx was right in thinking that this is how history moves forward is certainly debateable, but I think that that must be a different topic for a different time. However, the point is that I think Trotskyism's fundamental difference of opinion on how the revolution will occur is important enough to consider it a distinctily different intellectual tradition that does not arise purely for Marxist thinking.

This was a huge edit. Awesome.

Jesus wrote:

Well, he was right about the fact that, peasants are easily manipulable puppets.

I agree.

Self organazing of millions of people to me, in this age, seems to me really f'd up hard, its easier to let a party do it, no?

CoolKidX wrote:

Self organazing of millions of people to me, in this age, seems to me really f'd up hard, its easier to let a party do it, no?

that only leads to authoritarianism though, then why not just let the party take control of everything?
something seems tough oh the party is taking care of it, not to worry.

As a Leninist I believe in a vanguard, I feel like you need a group of proffesional revolutionaries to help spread the knowledge and gather the masses. I can understand fears of others that they might just stay in power. But that is why the populace would have weapons of their own.

CoolKidX wrote:

Self organazing of millions of people to me, in this age, seems to me really f'd up hard, its easier to let a party do it, no?

I think you're confusing this concept by comparing a form of self-organization with a state-run country. Millions of people wouldn't be able to coordinate in one grassroots organization very effectively, which is where the anarchist idea of federations comes from. Grassroots organization must take place within the community, on a rather small scale, with these organizations federating in order to coordinate the economy and any necessary revolutionary conduct. So millions of people within one country would have some thousands of community based organizations that were merely coordinated through federations (of which there would be many).

Anyway, i chose the last option given the way that Trotskyism has manifested itself in reality (even if it does have some theoretical ideas worth noting).

To the Gulag with this heresy!

trotsky was a less athoratian leninist, wich still makes him a communist, wich makes him bad.

Riddler wrote:

To the Gulag with this heresy!

I had a serious laugh at this.


But yea, the people need to be educated before they can organize themselves, and I see this is the job of the Vanguard party.

Liche wrote:

Riddler wrote:

To the Gulag with this heresy!

I had a serious laugh at this.


But yea, the people need to be educated before they can organize themselves, and I see this is the job of the Vanguard party.

don't you see the insane potential for corruption here?