Seattle socialist city councilor Kshama Sawant has been subject to repeated corporate-backed attempts to remove her from office. Last night, she defeated yet another. Despite attacks from some of the world’s most powerful capitalists, Sawant isn’t going anywhere.
Strongly recommend this essay on the flaws of sectarianism, dogmatism, and ultra-leftism that has a lot of valuable critique of Trotskist orgs who have this style of work, and praise of groups that do actual work.
The main issue I see with a lot of trotskyite groups is that many of them refuse to do mass work on the line that the conditions must be right first, and that the correct theory and strategy must be developed before mass work can start. However, were this the dominant trend no mass movement could ever form because everyone would be waiting until conditions being right which will only happen through mass organization and struggle. Similarly, useful and true theory is developed through reflection on practice. Without revolutionary practice, there is no revolutionary theory and so on.
That said, there are trot groups that do real mass organization like the SWP and Socialist Alternative who I do admire and who do real work. I think a lot of issues arise from the fact that the mentioned tendency of waiting for the perfect theory before organizing was typical of most trot groups for a long time hence that association being made. It is possible to have a trot line without being a trotskyist in this sense, but there is a lot of confusion and polemics that get in the way.
Anyways, sorry to lecture I hope that is clarifying!
EDIT: the relevant passages for people who don't want to read the whole essay
spoiler
"An idealist definition of a “trotskyist” would focus on whether or not an individual or group like Leon Trotsky, read his work with respect and sided with Trotsky over Stalin in the 1920’s and 1930’s. A materialist definition of a “trotkyist” on the other hand would ask rather whether or not a group acted essentially like Trotsky acted and if its strategy was essentially like that of Trotsky, i.e., was objectively “Trotskyite”. Taking a materialist approach one would be considered a trotskyist if one acting like Trotsky even if one liked Stalin and hated Trotsky, while conversely one would not be considered a trotskyist if one did not acted like Trotsky and have a strategy like that of Trotsky, even if one liked Trotsky, read his works, etc. In Examining various groups and currents we must be very careful to always use a materialist definition, and not be confused by verbal disclaimers, genealogies or posters on people’s walls. "
""The essence of what the Marxist-Leninist tradition including Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Ho Chi Minh have meant by “trotskyism” is a left-adventurist and dogmatic analysis which condemns all existing socialist countries and people’s democracies as not really socialist, being run by bureaucrats or perhaps state capitalists acting against the interests of the working people, and which likewise condemns all massive popular, progressive, or Communist led movements as being insufficiently revolutionary or in the process of selling out the masses in the interests of a bureaucracy, either local or located in the USSR, China, etc. Trotskyism differs from the anarchists who make similar claims about all progressive and socialist movements and regimes by claiming adherence to the principles of Leninism, endorsing the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and organizing themselves more or less according to Leninist principles. This is the essence of trotskyism and the sole criteria by which a group or current should be categorized as “trotskyist.”"