I have read my Soviet history, I have read articles about it, I have watched YouTube videos, and I have even read Trotsky but I still have no idea what being a Trotskyist is supposed to mean. It seems to me like one of Trotsky's main ideas is Permanent Revolution but what the Fuck does that mean from a practical standpoint? Does that mean being a Trotskyist means you want to gain power so you can start a global war against the bourgeoisie? It seems like whenever someone calls themselves a Trotskyist what they are really saying is they are a Communist but Stalin is bad so we need a new name. :trot-shining:
Hot take: There really isn't much reason for intra-Marxist sectarianism these days, because the Comintern doesn't exist and neither does the 4th International. Any new socialist states that arise this century will inevitably have different material forces guiding their development than 20th Century states. We can and should study 20th Century tendencies and learn from the reasons for schisms and the mistakes that were made, but it's foolish to base one's entire political identity around policy that was formulated decades ago in response to conditions that existed decades ago.
Comintern does exist. I think the 4th international is limping onwards too. Hell, the Second International is still around, providing even more proof of why Lenin was right to break away.
Comintern doesn’t exist and neither does the 4th International
Last time i checked, there were at least two or three 4th internationals, although there's also Trots who believe the 4th International doesn't exist anymore.
At this point, Trotskyist is basically a term for Marxists who don't like the USSR and the other governments it inspired.
Trotskyism is often seen as a slippery slope to other, crazier ideas. Posadism is an offshoot of Trotskyism. Some Trotskyists believed revolution would be easier under Imperialism than Stalinism, and became neocons. However, these vary from one of Trotsky's greatest personal beliefs: that the deformed workers state is preferable to a bourgois state. Thus, most manifestations of Trotskyism no longer have any attachments to Trotsky as a theorist.
As a historical figure, he's become a rallying point for those who support socialism, but are not comfortable with what they've heard about Stalin and other Marxist regeimes. Supporters of those governments see Trotskyists as ideologically compromised by Imperialist propaganda and justify their extreme hatred of Trots with the historical examples of those who turned against socialism.
I think Lenin's populatity is different. Stalinist and Trotskyists both look up to him, along with people who don't have a stance on the conflict. He's a unifying figure rather than an alternate.
Up until the fall of the USSR it was Trotsky = GOOD communism (not like the BAD communism of the USSR) particularly in European nations building up a veneer of political and ideological distancing from the USSR. It was characterized by constant critique of the USSR, China, and basically any AES nation as "not being REAL socialism/communism/whateverism" and sustaining a nominal love of human rights and anti-authoritarianism (free Tibet, free Afghanistan, free Czechoslovakia, free Hungary, etc). In practice it turned a sort of blind eye to all but the most overt forms of military imperialism from the NATO powers, which is why to this day you'll still have Western socialist leaders like Corbyn take the occasional pro-western stance in the name of human rights. But as Fakename_Bill said these distinctions are now irrelevant in the fall of the COMINTERN, the USSR, and the 4th International. Communism today is mostly led by China, Cuba and Vietnam, all whom have detoured significantly from the dogmatic lines drawn by the USSR back in the day. Any newly resurged movement will either borrow from these AES nations, of will have to forge a new path by necessity. It's not 20th century Russia anymore. Perhaps one day there may be a Fifth International to establish how we should build socialism in the future, and we can (and should) invite the ancoms, syndies, communalists, and so on, but we'll need to build it first.
AES stands for "actually existing socialism"
to my understanding, it's an basically an umbrella term for any state which claims to be socialist, regardless of whether any person judges them to actually be so
Usually a judgement is made that they are making attempts at moving towards socialism/are lead by a socialist ideology, the "Any state that claims to be socialist/has a red flag" is a common strawman mockery of this position.
Trotskyism evolved into Posadism. Nuclear fire is revolutionary fire. I don't make the rules.
Trotskyists are people who hate the Hamilton musical because it's too mean to the guy who famously raped a 14 year old that he enslaved.
Okay, real talk time, consider this either a confession or a brag depending on from which viewpoint you read this following comment:
Ideologies named after people have always kind of rubbed me the wrong way / freaked me out. Not necessarily just the naming of a certain person's ideology as a point of reference, but its when people positively self-identify themselves as also being a subscriber to said ideology. Look: I'm pretty comfortable with accepting Marx as a Marxist, they were his ideas, after all. I suppose Engels can probably refer to himself as one if he so chooses because they both almost exclusively wrote books with each other, and because "Engelsist" sounds like a gross growth you'd get on the back of your knee or something, so I'll give him a pass. Beyond that though, Can anyone really say they are a MARXist? Yeah he had some good ideas, but he'd be over 200 years old if he were alive today, and wouldn't have been writing for the past 130+ of those years. I'd HOPE your personal views draw from some people who didn't do all their writing in a world where the paperclip and thumb tack weren't even invented yet. Further, I'd hope your views aren't just lifted from "theory" you've read and you have a few thoughts you've arrived at with your own critical thinking, but I'm not trying to shoot the moon here.
Just pick a noun that describes what you'd want your ideal world-view to achieve, stick on a few adjectives if you feel they are necessary, and call it a day.
There's already great responses here so I don't have too much to add. Just wanna say permanent revolution is a highly polarizing phrase. As a person said below lenin himself supported a version of it. Not the same level as trotsky but the general idea was something he wasn't against. But trotskyism like stalinism I think is really a b.s. catch all term that effectively just means people who don't like stalin and the ussr. Isaac Deutscher in his books on trotsky said as much his own self. Now isaac was against stalin but even he recognized trotskyism wasn't really a thing and was just for people who were pissy at stalin. Even when trotsky was still alive his so called "followers" were a giant pain in the ass. All they ever did was argue with each other and most of them weren't as radical as he was nor followed many of his beliefs. So yeah I think permanent revolution is an interesting idea and one that under the right circumstances would work very well, but people calling themselves trotskyists I believe are wrong.
Here's my highly uneducated brief take (that would get me insta-banned from /r/communism101 for good reasons):
Trotsky wanted permanent international revolution, and without it, the communism that would develop would not be sustainable. Lenin agreed with this. The only difference is Lenin said "ok let's do it anyway" and Trotsky said "hmm can we not"
Brb gotta read a history book
