Not a Trot but i was an anarcho-communist for about a week in high school, when a socdem friend of mine got into an argument with a communist friend, and i took the “middle ground”/“enlightened centrist” option of “let’s stop arguing about what kind of state and just not have a state at all”. I quickly realized that was stupid and started a years-long transition from something like a “euro-socialist” to Marxism-Leninism, by slowly learning history and bit by bit unlearning the propaganda i’d been fed all my life about communism. It’s a gradual process without any big “awakening” moment.
Though i guess if there was a “red thread” that guided me throughout the whole process it would be a commitment to anti-fascism. If you are actually seriously anti-fascist and serious about investigating and understanding history, i think you cannot help but arrive sooner or later at the conclusion that Marxism-Leninism is by far the most successful weapon against fascism.
But i understand where the impulse to go Trotskyist comes from. You see that communism is the right way to go but you’ve been told too often that Stalin was evil and that the “Stalinist” socialist system of the eastern bloc was evil, and it’s too difficult to question that consensus and expose yourself to accusations of supporting “authoritarian dictatorships” so you fall back on the old “if only the good communist had taken power instead of the bad one, everything would have been perfect”.
It’s a mix of purity fetishism, being attracted to the failed communists because they never held power so never had to make compromises, and being psychologically unable to let go of and deconstruct anti-communist propaganda because the peer pressure is too great so you find a way to “side-step” it instead, a way to square the circle: “yes those communists were bad, but not us”.
But i understand where the impulse to go Trotskyist comes from. You see that communism is the right way to go but you’ve been told too often that Stalin was evil and that the “Stalinist” socialist system of the eastern bloc was evil, and it’s too difficult to question that consensus and expose yourself to accusations of supporting “authoritarian dictatorships” so you fall back on the old “if only the good communist had taken power instead of the bad one, everything would have been perfect”.
It’s a mix of purity fetishism, being attracted to the failed communists because they never held power so never had to make compromises, and being psychologically unable to let go of and deconstruct anti-communist propaganda because the peer pressure is too great so you find a way to “side-step” it instead, a way to square the circle: “yes those communists were bad, but not us”.
I’ve had a brief anarcho-communist then trotskyist phase when I first started getting into politics and this was it. I had internalized all the anticommunist propaganda to the point where even considering that Stalin was a normal human being whose decisions can be analyzed in a historical context instead of a mythical demon was unthinkable. What got me out of that trap was reading theory and studying the history of the 20th century with an anti-fascist mindset.
Once you break free from these anticommunist brainworms, all the scary shame inducing words liberals throw around like tankie, stalinist, authoritarian, etc are ultimately just a modernized accusation of witchcraft. If the label does not scare you, it quickly becomes obvious that the people weaponizing it have no actual arguments apart from the social pressure to confirm to the officially approved worldview.
🎯
I had to stick with trots for a while and I got misled in many issues like Spanish civil war etc. I didn’t get radicalized by trots just got radicalized by reading engels marx lenin works step by step.
I find the formatting of your question odd. One could see communist as being the realists, not radical. Trotskyites are Marxists, they simply envision a different methodology for spreading the word; a worldwide socialist revolution versus a more Lenin-Stalinist “domino theory” of one country at a time; Mao, a revolution starts in rural areas, while Lenin-Trotsky were urban-centric. We’re all comrades at the end of the day with similar goals; the labels and tribes work against us.
Personally, I don’t care about what a group labels itself and don’t necessarily subscribe to one methodology over another so long as it gets results. Nonetheless, Trotskyists from my point of view spend a lot of time bashing other formations for being too “stalinist” and often uphold the incorrect line on Venezuela, Iran, China, and Russia.
For me, it is less about the merits of one historic figure over another and more about doing the work of the enemy for them. Demonise historic successes such as the PRC and USSR, while on present day issues (i.e imperialist aggression against Iran and Venezuela) adopting a sort of compatible left view on things. I would assume that this was the sort of groups the OP had in mind.
Despite this, it remains true that there are Trotskyist individuals and formations that are genuine forces for the left. The EFF and certain elements of the UPM in SA, as well as some in Latin America from what I hear. I suppose the key here is to not be out of touch with the masses and not get caught up in academic debate.
“Lenin-Stalinist”
What? 😭
