I do not mean to say Trotskyism is an ideology that I disagree with or think they make bad arguments, but I mean to say that Trotskyists genuinely do not believe in anything. It is just an anti-communist movement in communist aesthetics with no actual beliefs other than being in opposition to every actually-existing communist movement.
I have trouble explaining to people what precisely I mean by it is not a real ideology, so here are some paraphrasings of real arguments/conversations I have had with Trots to illustrate what I mean.
- Trot: Trotskyism is opposed to the stageism that the Mensheviks were using to justify not having a revolution.
- Me: We also disagree with the Mensheviks.
- Trot: It's not just about disagreement but the ideological reason as to why!
- Me: You mean this? quotes "Foundations of Leninism givng an argument as to why we should oppose stageism as an ideology
- Trot: That doesn't prove me wrong.
- Me: I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I'm asking where we disagree.
- Trot: We disagree on the fact that we believe the survival of a socialist revolution depends upon the international revolution.
- Me: But, we also agree with that. quotes the same thing stated in "Foundations of Leninism"
Then he stopped replying.
Another conversation.
- Trot: Socialism in one country is stupid.
- Me: Revolution can't happen simultaneously all at once due to uneven development, so it has to happen on a country-by-country basis.
- Trot: That's a straw man! We don't believe it has to happen all at once!
- Me: Okay, well I wasn't saying you did, glad we agree then.
- Trot: Nuh uh we don't agree, because Stalin dissolved the Comintern and replaced it with the Cominform and made deals with western countries!
- Me: This was a discussion on Marxist-Leninist ideology, not on Stalin's policies specifically, so I don't care to address that there, please stay on topic.
- Trot: You're a LARPer who refuses to acknowledge the failures of the USSR!
- Me: Most all MLs are critical of decisions made by the USSR but that doesn't inherently contradict Marxism-Leninism since MLism is not "whatever the USSR did." You still are not staying on topic.
They never went back on topic so I left this conversation myself.
I just recently had another interaction with a Trot that looked like this.
- Trot A: Marxism-Leninism is an anti-communist ideology.
- Me: What specific disagreements do you have with it ideologically?
- Trot A: Socialism in one country is anti-communist!
- Me: What does "socialism in one country" mean to you?
- Trot A: leaves the conversation
- Trot B: joins the conversation
- Trot B: Socialism in one country means anti-communism!
- Me: That is really your definition of it?
Neither Trot A or B ever reentered the conversation and responded.
I challenge you if you meet a Trot just try to pressure them to give a clear ideological disagreement as to where they actually differ from Marxist-Leninists. They will always do one of four things:
- Straw man the Marxist-Leninist position. Such as saying socialism in one country means entirely abandoning the international arena, even though SIOC was not an answer to should we build socialism in one country but can we after western revolutions failed and it was clear the USSR would be isolated for some time, that they shouldn't abandon the revolution. Foundations of Leninism is very clear that the revolution is an international one and socialism in a single country will inevitably revert to capitalism if the international revolution never succeeds, but that the revolution still occurs on a country-by-country basis. They also straw man MLism as "stageism" claiming they support the Menshevik belief that you should never have a communist revolution in a semi-feudal country, even though Stalin also attacks that position which he calls the "Chinese wall" theory in Foundations of Leninism (the idea that a "Chinese wall" of capitalism must separate socialism and feudalism).
- Deflect the conversation to Stalin's personal decisions or personal character. It doesn't matter your opinion of Stalin personally, but Trotskyists treat Trotskyism as Trotsky-worship so they have a legitimately hard time imagining that Marxism-Leninism is not Stalin worship. There is no requirement to agree with every decision Stalin made to be a Marxist-Leninist or to even like Stalin personally. I think it is wrong to waste your time defending Stalin from a Trot, because it is ultimately off topic and plays into their obsession with Trotsky and Stalin's personal character.
- Just throw out vague terms in opposition to any AES state saying they're "authoritarian" or "revisionist" but then refuse to ever give specifics if you try to pressure them into doing so.
- Some Trots are really leftcoms and not Trots, so they fill the ideological void with leftcom arguments, despite them going directly against Trotsky's own beliefs. I have even argued with a Trot once who switched to defending the Menshevik position saying that revolutions in semi-feudal countries should have never happened to begin with, even though that was definitely not one of Trotsky's own beliefs!
Trust me, if you engage with Trots like this you will clearly see what I mean in their complete lack of any actual beliefs. It's not even correct to say Trotskyism is a revisionist or anti-communist ideology, as it is not even an ideology, they don't believe in anything and cannot genuinely articulate a single genuine disagreement.
It is more of a movement that exists for no other purpose than to oppose all AES countries and all parties aligned with them while doing so in communist aesthetics.
My biggest trouble with trots is similarly that frankly I don't understand their alternative positions.
At least something like permanent revolution, attempting to attack capitlist countries and turning them socialist, is an explicit critique of Stalins policy. It's concrete and can be discussed in regards to how feasible it is with SOIC and how that played out.
But more often then not I have little idea what Trotskyists want from a revolution. What exactly would their revolution look like? How would it differ from ML revolutions.
I'd probably have more respect for them if they ever posed an actual alternative. Like at least Maoists will try to contend with arguments and when they point out the China is revisionist they often have a different proposal in mind, even if it's anti-materialist and likely to not hold up to scrutiny, they more often provide an alternative.
Trots and Leftcoms don't. They'll critique the present organization of a movement without any guidance on correcting that collective behavior.
Yes, that is what I am getting at. There actually isn't even a clear dividing line between PR and SIOC.
Sometimes Trots will pretend there is a dividing line by claiming SIOC believes socialism should remain in one country forever and be completely isolationist, but that's obviously a straw man because the USSR was far from isolationist and if you read Foundations of Leninism it is clear that the purpose of the socialist country is to facilitate revolutions in other countries, i.e. it's a strategy for international revolution and not to remain in one country forever, because the uneven development of capitalism makes it only possible that revolutions will occur on a country-by-country basis. It even says in FoL that if socialism remains in one country forever it will eventually regress back to capitalism so it is imperative that it engage in the international arena.
If a person points this out, Trots will usually agree that the uneven development of capitalism leads to revolutions only occurring on a country-by-country basis. I've yet to find one Trot who disagrees and I read a book by Trotsky and he seems to say it himself. So it is again unclear to me what the actual disagreement is. If you push them to tell you, they either leave the conversation or will just deflect to criticizing Stalin's personal policies, but I don't even see that as an ideological disagreement because MLism is not Stalin worship. A person can think abolishing the Comintern and replacing it with the Cominform was a bad decision while still being an ML, for example. Disagreeing with Stalin on things does not inherently contradict MLism unless it's a disagreement core to Marxist-Leninist theory.
Even if they give me a "solution" like saying the USSR should've implemented different policies, that kind of analysis doesn't inherently contradict with Marxism-Leninism as most MLs will probably agree there are problems with the USSR and have opinions on things that should've been different.