I see people who are left-liberal anticommunists getting called Tr*ts sometimes but I don’t know what exactly it means.

What characterises a Trotskyist?

The only things I know are that Trotsky:

  • was opposed to Stalin.
  • wanted international revolutions.
  • perished because of an ice-pick attack. (Not sure about this.)
  • @CommisarChowdahead
    link
    22
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    In my opinion there are two kinds of tr#ts. First we have the new leftist, someone who has only recently discovered socialism, and is still learning the history and theory liberal education denied them. As such, they come to support socialism, even communism, but do not yet have an accurate understanding of history and as such are uncomfortable supporting AES. They go through a Tr#tskyist phase, believing that the USSR would have been perfect if everyone had just followed Tr#tsky. Usually, this kind of person ends up as an ML (myself included) because they continue to do research and get into arguments on the internet with better informed MLs.

    Then there is the other kind of Trots#yist, the well read and committed Tr#t. They know what he did, they know what he wrote, and they know who he allied himself with and they either do not care or deny it. These kinds of people are the more detestable ones, as they spend their time spreading lies about Lenin, Stalin, and all AES while also wrongly and ahistorically insisting that the peasantry cannot be a revolutionary class and that the proletariat alone can pursue revolution. Most of these types are western academics like the type that turned me into a t#ot. Honestly I wish there was an easy way to fix these people, but for the time being we should continue to marginalize them while teaching accurate history and theory.

    Trots#yism itself is pretty simple. Take orthodox Marxism ala Rosa Luxemburg and prented to do Leninism sometimes. Then add the beliefs that exclusively the industrial proletariat can be revolutionary and that the purpose of the revolution in any country was not to build socialism at home but to commit it’s resources to spreading the revolution abroad (war). Even during the Russian revolution he was proven wrong by the fact that in many areas of the country, peasants and soldiers engaged in the revolution to a great extent. The second bit is even worse, as what this means is that he would have built an economy centered around war with the sole and explicit goal of invading other countries, overthrowing their governments and social order, and then moving on to the next conquest. This too is a laughable idea. It would have been suicidal and ruinous to reengage with WWI like Tr#tsky wanted, and it wouldn’t have been much better if they had declared an offensive war at any time after that. He was a fool who should be acknowledged for the positive role he played during the revolution, but his actions afterwords are inexcusable.

    • @Vinapocalypse
      link
      54 years ago

      The latter reminds me of a certain person from Leftbook circles whose name resembles a toy bear

      • @CommisarChowdahead
        link
        54 years ago

        Not really a facebook user so I’m a little confused about the toy bear.

        • @Vinapocalypse
          link
          44 years ago

          Oh, don’t worry about it :) This person has fits and spurts of being a well-read but shithead Tr*t in a couple of Leftbook groups (the ones they haven’t been blocked from already anyway)

      • @CommisarChowdahead
        link
        2
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        So every comment has to be an essay? Even the most cursory study of what he wrote agrees with what I said. No one else cited anything he wrote except for you, someone even called it dogshit, and yet this is the worst post? Fuck off. If you can prove any of what I said wrong I challenge you to do so.

        Edit: people did post links, I hadn’t seen them yet.