In meme form:

No seriously tho, my main objection is that its west/euro-centric. This vid by Taimur Rahman, who spent a ton of years in trotskyist orgs in the US, outlines the theoretical underpinnings for this and why trotskyism (despite a few of his texts being not bad), has been a complete historical failure, and ignored by the global south.

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.

Pre-Revolution Trot supported Socialism, though he hitched himself to the Menshevik - who wanted a more peaceful and slower progress into Socialism. That party was mostly occupied by Social-Democrats and Liberals, and would side with the Whites during the civil war. After Trot left the Menshevik, he would tack himself onto other people’s ideals and act as an opportunist. More or less everything he’s credited for during that time was the brainchildren of other people, including the theory of the permanent revolution, to which would have crushed the Union. After Lenin died and Stalin took power, Trot started moving quickly to the right. During the leadup to the second world war, he would be escorted through Fascist Italy via Italian officials, and he would be preparing to go in front of the House of Un-American Activities Community before his assassination.

Or to sum, Trot was an opportunist who turned his back on the revolution. And, worst of all, the bigger group of his supporters completely whitewash his theories to be anti-Communist and anti-Stalin, so now - at least in the west - his memory is and can only be synonymous with Anti-Communist Leftism.

I do recommend reading Trot’s works though, he does have some genuinely good theory. And if you’re looking for Trot orgs that are half-decent, it’s best to look outside of the west.

I asked that to a comrade in my party once. In his opinion, they are people who want to be communists (and Marxists) but can’t see themselves supporting the USSR.

This, in my opinion, leads to an immature ideology. You can’t be Marxist-Leninist and not support the USSR, it’s incompatible (with all necessary caveats but bear with me here). So at some point your growth has to stop and this leads Trotskyists to adopt some reactionary viewpoints, for example forming the Leon Sedov brigade.

There are a lot of good quotes from Lenin on Trotsky’s opportunism under the section "Briefly on Lenin & Trotsky. He was not the “heir to Lenin” as Trots would like to have you believe.

https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/trotskyism/

“Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion” (CW 20, 448-9).

imagine a pile of dogshit

That is your foundation of trotskyism

For a serious answer I would refer you to two letters by Trotsky

Two policies may now be applied: to destroy ideologically and organically the fractional walls which still exist, and thus destroy the very foundations of Leninism, which is incompatible with the organisation of workers into a political party, but which can perfectly grow on the manure of splits; or, on the contrary, to conduct a fractional selection of anti- Leninists (Mensheviks or liquidators) by a complete liquidation of the divergences on tactics.

Trotsky, Letter to Chkeidze 1913

https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/trotltrs.htm

Against Trotskyism book - https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/AgainstTrotskyism.pdf

deleted by creator

deleted by creator