Some of the people who're in charge are very into ultra materialist dialectics, like dialectics in natural sciences. One of the higher ups Alan Woods put out a book called reason and revolt back in the 90s that attempted to dialectically disprove the big bang, it's dialectics of nature drivel that I see no merit in lol.
Didn't Marx have intention to dive into that topic but simply never got around to it? Or was that Engels? I'm sure one of them posited that all of nature could be analysed that way and mentioned the intention to show it but bigger priorities were afoot.
Engels had a large amount of fragmentary notes on it that were posthumously published by Bernstein as the Dialectics of Nature. Engels intentions with them is still debated and they are not a choherent work given their fragmentary nature. Interestingly Einstein was consulted over their publication, and wanted them published as intellectual curiosities into Engels thought, but was firm they had no scientific value.
Cool. I knew that was locked in my brain from having seen it somewhere but at 5am I'm just not at all with it enough to dive into those deepest reaches for info.
Trots historically were most known for being critics (to various degrees) of the Soviet Union and other socialist states. IMO their relative popularity at their peak mostly owed to this. This varied from "they have problems and need some serious reforms" to "they are essentially just state-run capitalism, but maybe even worse." I believe Trotsky himself changed his views on this several times, which is part of what caused this.
Most of them use a relatively rigid model of democratic centralism, which imo over-emphasizes internal discipline and ideological agreement. They tend to believe that having a correct analysis will give them a disproportionate influence politically. I think these factors are what lead to their reputation for factionalism and splits.
To be fair, they do (did?) actually have a pretty decent influence given their relatively small numbers, but I think this is less due to their theories being proven correct, and more due to the fact that their members are often extremely active and dedicated. The downside of this is that their newer members tend to burn out.
Trotskyists also tend to be pretty well read, and pretty historically knowledgeable, but this knowledge tends to be narrow and deep. For example they'll know about dozens of figures from the Russian revolution and the 3rd international, but won't know much about any post-1968 theorists outside of their tendancy.
I could go on, but I think that gives a fair introduction. I'm a former trot myself and I certainly have critiques, but I also think they're generally well intentioned and serious people who are trying to figure out the same problems as the rest of the left. I think their whole tendency is kind of on the decline, in numbers and in relevance, but I also think they did a lot of good during the tough period between the 70's and ~2008.
They believe socialist states should prioritize creating revolutions in other countries in order to ensure those countries can be fully socialist. A popular slogan is "communism can only be global."
They hold socialist projects to very high standards, and care a lot about the class composition of government, the communization of the mop, etc.
They prioritize the potential for socialism over anti imperialism, for example a lot of them supported the Syrian revolution because workers councils took over sections of the economy.
They often maintain international communication with specifically Latin American communists. I knew a few folks whose branch was basically: a newspaper, a reading group, and a weekly fundraiser / penpal group for a mexican political prisoner.
A lot of them do this thing called a "transitional program" where they get elected to school boards and city councils and advocate reforms that are impossible under capitalism with the hope that people will attack capitalism in order to realize them. This is Sawant's strategy.
Also in my experience they have a parasitic relationship to social movements where they see them only as access to a platform and potential new members, and will prioritize those goals over the goals of the social movements.
Apparently they're the International Marxist Tendency who are apparently ortho-trots. Don't know much else about them tbh.
They got some whack view of diaMat imo.
IMT? Or trots in general?
IMT.
Interesting, I'm not sure what their view is, can you explain?
Some of the people who're in charge are very into ultra materialist dialectics, like dialectics in natural sciences. One of the higher ups Alan Woods put out a book called reason and revolt back in the 90s that attempted to dialectically disprove the big bang, it's dialectics of nature drivel that I see no merit in lol.
Didn't Marx have intention to dive into that topic but simply never got around to it? Or was that Engels? I'm sure one of them posited that all of nature could be analysed that way and mentioned the intention to show it but bigger priorities were afoot.
Engels had a large amount of fragmentary notes on it that were posthumously published by Bernstein as the Dialectics of Nature. Engels intentions with them is still debated and they are not a choherent work given their fragmentary nature. Interestingly Einstein was consulted over their publication, and wanted them published as intellectual curiosities into Engels thought, but was firm they had no scientific value.
Cool. I knew that was locked in my brain from having seen it somewhere but at 5am I'm just not at all with it enough to dive into those deepest reaches for info.
What should I expect from a devout trotskyist?
It really varies a lot.
Trots historically were most known for being critics (to various degrees) of the Soviet Union and other socialist states. IMO their relative popularity at their peak mostly owed to this. This varied from "they have problems and need some serious reforms" to "they are essentially just state-run capitalism, but maybe even worse." I believe Trotsky himself changed his views on this several times, which is part of what caused this.
Most of them use a relatively rigid model of democratic centralism, which imo over-emphasizes internal discipline and ideological agreement. They tend to believe that having a correct analysis will give them a disproportionate influence politically. I think these factors are what lead to their reputation for factionalism and splits.
To be fair, they do (did?) actually have a pretty decent influence given their relatively small numbers, but I think this is less due to their theories being proven correct, and more due to the fact that their members are often extremely active and dedicated. The downside of this is that their newer members tend to burn out.
Trotskyists also tend to be pretty well read, and pretty historically knowledgeable, but this knowledge tends to be narrow and deep. For example they'll know about dozens of figures from the Russian revolution and the 3rd international, but won't know much about any post-1968 theorists outside of their tendancy.
I could go on, but I think that gives a fair introduction. I'm a former trot myself and I certainly have critiques, but I also think they're generally well intentioned and serious people who are trying to figure out the same problems as the rest of the left. I think their whole tendency is kind of on the decline, in numbers and in relevance, but I also think they did a lot of good during the tough period between the 70's and ~2008.
They believe socialist states should prioritize creating revolutions in other countries in order to ensure those countries can be fully socialist. A popular slogan is "communism can only be global."
They hold socialist projects to very high standards, and care a lot about the class composition of government, the communization of the mop, etc.
They prioritize the potential for socialism over anti imperialism, for example a lot of them supported the Syrian revolution because workers councils took over sections of the economy.
They often maintain international communication with specifically Latin American communists. I knew a few folks whose branch was basically: a newspaper, a reading group, and a weekly fundraiser / penpal group for a mexican political prisoner.
A lot of them do this thing called a "transitional program" where they get elected to school boards and city councils and advocate reforms that are impossible under capitalism with the hope that people will attack capitalism in order to realize them. This is Sawant's strategy.
Also in my experience they have a parasitic relationship to social movements where they see them only as access to a platform and potential new members, and will prioritize those goals over the goals of the social movements.
A newspaper.
Oooo. Trots...