Trotskyites have extremely low tolerance for splitting and at the same time try to maintain demcent, which results in splintering like a tree struck by lightning.
Because his positions oscillated wildly through 1900s, 1910s, 1920-1925, 1925-1935, you can find any reading of him you like which results in incoherency of ‘his’ groups.
Extremely broadly speaking his initial (circa 1923-26) critique was correct, but like, Stalin adopted similarly left positions later, in 1929(?), after nep sunset.
I honestly think there is also value in his later systematic critique, because it came largely true, but like 30-50 years later.
Trotskyites have extremely low tolerance for splitting and at the same time try to maintain demcent, which results in splintering like a tree struck by lightning. Because his positions oscillated wildly through 1900s, 1910s, 1920-1925, 1925-1935, you can find any reading of him you like which results in incoherency of ‘his’ groups.
Extremely broadly speaking his initial (circa 1923-26) critique was correct, but like, Stalin adopted similarly left positions later, in 1929(?), after nep sunset.
I honestly think there is also value in his later systematic critique, because it came largely true, but like 30-50 years later.
?
democratic centralism
Ah, thanks. I thought it was a bizarre typo.
My other theories were: