Why are trotskyists so universally hated?

Why are trotskyists so universally hated?

Even ☭TANKIE☭s aren't dismissed as quickly as trots, why is it ok to hate trots?

Attached: pwxsm-1-e1504594283901.jpg (458x531, 93.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/gommunisd/status/980390598501953536
youtube.com/watch?v=22xm_jfybbI
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_(Burma)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)#Internal_crisis_in_2013-2014_over_allegations_of_rape
george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/10.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Trotsky was a ☭TANKIE☭ by the mainstream definition of the word.

twitter.com/gommunisd/status/980390598501953536

quite literally due to memes

Scrolling through this guy's account… why are marxists almost universally huge faggots?

I've been a marxist since I was 19 and I've only met a solid 4 male leftists that were not gay or crazy.

Attached: e7ad9a11d4a8e78039961eaa4a315b8c4c14fd47e97e00f069c66720c2a61c29.png (373x326, 30.38K)

I'm gay and into Marxism. Why do you think I got into this?

Well I didn't know the guy, I just saved that tweet once and thought it was a relative.

I'm a male leftist. I'm straight. I'm not really crazy either lol. So if I met you, i would be number 5.

But yeah, a lot of them seem to be trannies and/or weird idpol fetishists. I don't know why. But this isn't the case worldwide, of course. This only pertains to Western "socialists". Maybe because socialist thought is so shunned in the West that the people who flock to it the most are already outcasted by society, whereas normies are more or less content or indifferent to the system and thus don't spend their time LARPing as LGBTQKIA+ over a dozen US military bases in Syria soldiers on Twitter.

Because the Left is now full of 18 year old Stalinists who haven't read the basics but are just acting up the stereotype: hating Trots, wearing dumb clothes, having a Soviet flag on their wall, etc. It's all part of that teenage quest for identity.

yes, there is a huge aspect of lifestylism to it. here in germany, most socialists are just drunkard punks who have read a few rosa luxemburg quotes and squat buildings and wave israel flags and go to shitty music shows. it's literally a meme subculture. these are the same shitheads that go all "oh i used to have a communist phase" 10 years later in their life. fucking disgusting. it sucks that we can't convince actual workers anymore and instead have to rely on lifestylist upper middle class junkies to spread "class consciousness" (which never happens because, gasp, the struggle for feminism for example is more urgent so let's just concentrate on that!)

Looked through his account, I was being too harsh… kid's only in high school and everyone's a faggot in hs.

The question still stands though… male Marxists in the U.S. (atleast the ones I've met, I do go to a bourgeois liberal arts college so that probably has something to do with it) are overwhelmingly gay… I'm talking a solid 50% or more.

Attached: Dc42wPCXUAE4CgL.jpg:large.jpeg (567x607, 33.01K)

Forgive my doubts, but source?

...

Attached: IMG_1746.PNG (1242x1271, 232.22K)

with leftist i mean "the radical left", not liberals like the Greens or SPD.

i don't really have a source…it's more from my anecdotal experience. it's mostly in cities with strong university presences. they regularly fuck things up here where i live and are affiliated with antifa.

i'd say antideutsche, antifa and autonomes/anarchists are the largest leftist movements in germany. they all obviously suck donkey balls

1. A lot of modern marxism is linked with feminism and pro-sex movements, so naturally a lot of LGBT people are going to encounter it at a higher rate than straight/cis people. Since LGBT people have already experienced accepting not socially acceptable things, they're already primed and ready for reading about marxism with an open mind.
2. Marxism is considered fringe or extremist in most circles, so naturally crazy people are going to be attracted to "crazy" ideas whether they're actually crazy ideas or not.

also Marx was a sexy hypebeast

Attached: grinch dong.png (343x432, 254.08K)

...

Do you mean this kind of faggot?

Attached: images (26).jpeg (334x440, 35.69K)

the fact that a lot of the complaining here is over the very presence of trans people in socialist groups means you'll all probably be better off as nazis, to be honest.

hah! that's such bullshit. travel more.

(me)
what's going on here reminds me of orwell's abuse of socialists as 'fruit-juice drinking sandal wearers' and the like. orwell was a shitty person. but you lot have this idealized image of what a socialist should be from old soviet propaganda posters of square-jawed red army chads who don't exist in reality, because you're all closet fascists who got into this via aesthetics and kitsch junk meme culture. anyways i'm a proud burger socialist and the most realistic depiction of a working class family in burgerland is the TV show roseanne with the lesbian sister, which if you didn't know was a boundary-breaking and progressive show at the time. i'm a proud roseanne burger socialist.

Attached: in-soviet-russia-your-name-is-ivan_o_2094839.jpg (451x422, 160.77K)

(me)
quoting one more time for roseanne.

Attached: roseanne_03.jpg (446x299, 94.14K)

Trots widely aren't hated. in nearly all liberal consciousness, Trotsky is seen at the well-meaning alternative to authoritarian communism. in socialist circles, 99% of major western communist parties are Trotskyist, and trotskyist parties are not insignificant in the third world. You only see hatred for Trots so much on left websites because Stalinists don't have big IRL organizations to participate in, and largely aren't politically active in any way, so they go online to whine and vent and try to slide forums into their own torture chamber.

Trotsky is cool but his modern day supporters are ehhhh

Honestly I think ☭TANKIE☭s and trots are the two pieces of the socialist puzzle

Almost every negative quality (or at least a quality that's commonly perceived as negative) found in other tendencies is also found in Trots
As such, all intertendency sectarianism is focused at Trots, making them reviled by absolutely everyone.

Trotskyites' popularity probably has more to do with the fact that the US Government actively oppressed all non-trot groups around the 1st world during the Cold War. Most orgs nowadays are just filled with old weirdos who think Hollywood directors should be allowed to rape people.

Attached: 1494724997179.jpg (979x832, 546.07K)

I was lurking on cuckchan for a while, and this one hit home for me. They larp about right wingers being portrayed as le evil nazis, yet here leftypol larps about how they're made fun of as soyboys. The redpill here is both sides are right! Now why the far left/right are both shitted on is an interesting discussion to have.

I don't hate trots, but I hate trots who can't survive without mentioning Stalin or buraucrats every 3 words

I mean, if poland had been taken, maybe there would'nt have been a rift in the first place.

Trots have never led a revolution

Attached: stalin7.jpg (1000x660, 169.66K)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_(Burma)
Erhm Sweetie.

Trotskyists has little to do with actual Trotsky. I respect Trotsky, but a party or a group that puts "trotskyist" in their name are probably morons. (At last In Russia, Europe and America)

Trotsky believed Stalin didn't go far enough, retarded spurdoposter.

Because of all the rape that supposedly happens in trot orgs.

I thought it was the western maoist orgs that had all the cultishness and rapes.

"Supposedly"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)#Internal_crisis_in_2013-2014_over_allegations_of_rape

cliffites were a mistake

Fringe movements attract fringe people.

Attached: z.gif (350x263, 44.03K)

Except, you know, Trotsky, who was the leader of the Red Army.

Attached: Lenin and Trotsky.jpg (2528x1820, 1.11M)

It's just western leftists in general. They're always cringy and annoying.
Even I'm a westerner and I can't stand them

george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/10.html

Learn to fucking read.

Free Roman Polanski!

You're not a real communist if you hate gay people. I bet you're a racist anti-semite to. Disgusting

Zig Forumstards and neocon normies are way more cringey

Does this sound trustworthy?

"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned."
(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 448, 1914).

"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one's transfer to Paris except Trotsky's (the scoundrel, he wants to 'fix up' the whole rascally crew of 'Pravda' at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists."
(Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 400).

"The struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism is… a struggle over the question whether to support the liberals or to overthrow the hegemony of the liberals over the peasantry. Therefore to attribute [as did Trotsky] our splits to the influence of the intelligentsia, to the immaturity of the proletariat, etc, is a childishly naive repetition of liberal fairy-tales.
…
Trotsky distorts Bolshevism, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution.
…
Therefore, when Trotsky tells the German comrades that he represents the 'general Party tendency' I am obliged to declare that Trotsky represents only his own faction and enjoys a certain amount of confidence exclusively among the otzovists and the liquidators."
(The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia, Collected Works, Vol. 16 pp. 374-392).

"It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre."
(Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).

"The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof except 'private conversations' (i.e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), classifying the 'Polish Marxists' in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg…
Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And thee gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned."
(The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 447-8).

"Trotskyism: “No tsar, but a workers’ government.” This is wrong. A petty bourgeoisie exists, and it cannot be dismissed. But it is in two parts. The poorer of the two is with the working class.

War. To end the war by pacifist means is utopia. It may be terminated by an imperialist peace. But the masses do not want such a peace. War is a continuation of the policies of a class; to change the character of the war one must change the class in power.
The name Communist Party is theoretically sound. The Left socialists of other countries are too weak. We must take the initiative."
(The Petrograd City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks) APRIL 14–22 (APRIL 27–MAY 5), 1917)

Dear comrades: In the past, in my opinion and that of a good number of comrades, Trotskyism has seemed a matter of struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. So they almost were not paying attention. But shortly before the outbreak of the war, more precisely since the end of 1936, and especially during the war, the criminal Trotskyist propaganda has opened our eyes. Then we started to study the problem. And our study has led us to the following conclusions:

1 – The problem of Trotskyism is not a struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. Because between Communists and Trotskyists there is no tie, absolutely no tie. It is a matter that concerns the whole people: the fight against the country.

2 – The fascist Japanese and foreign fascists know. So, looking to try to create disagreements, to mislead public opinion and undermine the popularity of the Communists, making people believe they are communists and Trotskyists in the same field.

3 – The Chinese Trotskyists (like the Trotskyists in other countries) do not represent a group, much less a political party. They are nothing more then a criminal gang, the hounds of Japanese fascism (and of international fascism).

4 – In all countries, the Trotskyists gave good nicknames to mask their dirty work of bandits. For example, in Spain, their names are Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Did you know that it is they who are the nests of spies in Madrid, Barcelona and elsewhere in the service of Franco? It is they who organized the famous “fifth column,” agency of the army intelligence of the fascist Italians and Germans. In Japan, they are called Marx-Engels-Lenin League (MEL). The Japanese Trotskyists attract young people to their league, then reported them to the police. They seek to penetrate the Japanese Communist Party in order to destroy it from within. In my opinion, the French Trotskyists, now organized around the Proletarian Revolution Group (1) set a goal to sabotage the Popular Front. On this subject, I think you are better informed than I am. In our country of China [referring to Indochina, N. E.], Trotskyists are grouped into formations like La Lutte, War against the Japanese, Culture and Red Flag.

5 – The Trotskyists are not only enemies of communism, but also enemies of democracy and progress. They are the most infamous traitors and spies. Maybe you have read the indictments of the processes in the Soviet Union against the Trotskyists. If you have not read them, I advise you to do so and to read them to your friends. It is a very useful reading. It will help them see the true disgusting face of Trotskyism and Trotskyists. Here, allow me to extract some passages relating directly to China. The true repugnant face of Trotskyism.

Before the court, the Trotskyist Rakovsky (2) confessed that in 1934 when he was in Tokyo (as representative of the Soviet Red Cross) a high character of the Japanese government had told him: “We have the right to expect from the Trotskyists a change in strategy. I will not go into details. I only wanted to say that we expect from the Trotskyists, actions that favor our intervention in the affairs of China.” Responding to the Japanese, Rakovsky said: “I will write to Trotsky about this.” In December 1935, Trotsky sent to his supporters in China, instructions that repeatedly emphasized that phrase: “Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.” And how have Trotskyists in China acted? They are in a hurry to know, is it not true? But, beloved comrades, I can not respond more in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon.

Attached: 20101010102508ho_chi_minh_1946_cropped.jpg (288x387, 115.32K)

only during the brief time when he renounced trotskyism… fuck, the only time a trotskyite helped lead a revolution was when he wasn't a trotskyite.

MFW

Attached: soviet occupation of Baltics.jpg (765x1006 67.63 KB, 833.13K)

Anarchists hate him for going batshit on Makhno and ☭TANKIE☭s hate him because Stalin hate him for going batshit on Makhno.

Attached: really makes me think.jpg (800x652, 37.65K)

Trotsky lead the October Revolution and Red Army and literally get called by Lenin himself "the best Bolshevik there is." Those quotes are all from when Trotsky was a Menshevik.

You know why there are so many quotes of Lenin criticizing Trotsky? Because Trotsky was relevant. Stalin literally played zero role in the October Revolution.

In his biography of Stalin, Trotsky gives overwhelming evidence that most of the Bolshevik leadership had absolutely no idea who Stalin was until in the early 20's. He was just mid-tier functionary throughout the revolution and civil war who managed to become relevant purely through bureaucratic maneuvering.

Should read late 1910's, I'm tired.

Bullshit, if Stalin was a nobody how was he even elected into the first soviet government? Or the central committee? Why was he to attend the Prague conference?

Trotsky to the dying ukranian peasants - "You are starving? - This is not famine yet… When your women start eating their children then you may come and say,"we are starving". Fuck you JIDF.

Attached: aUvEKpN.jpg (553x700, 79.2K)

Of course Trotsky would say that. But Stalin was in fact the Caucasus Bolshevik, and was appointed as the head of Pravda as soon as he managed to make his way back from Siberia in 1917. He was voted in as a people's commissar from the outset. He attended the earliest Bolshevik meetings in London and Vienna before the war. His obscurity has been much exaggerated by Trotsky, who could never get over the fact that he - the great urbane sophisticate who would read Flaubert during politburo meetings to display how little he thought of his colleagues - got played by this unsophisticated bandit from the mountains.

Communism step one disarm the public. Great leader takes control after long fought battle. Fuck this isnt real communism… FUCK we cant fight back cause we gave all our guns to the leader.

Attached: bldg 7.webm (1920x1080, 1.04M)

Trotsky just looks like a little gay nerd that got his shit rocked by a guy who called himself the man of steel and dont was butthurt for the rest of his life until the man of steel ordered him dead.
The whole of trotskyism seems to be nothing but whining about stalin.

Another thing about trotskyism is that it pretty much is pro imperialism what with the whole endless revolution shit

Attached: stalin33.jpg (523x400, 41.3K)

Stalin - oasis

Trotsky- blur

Lenin- pulp

Attached: JarvisCocker.jpg (640x360, 83.24K)

I'm going to call absolute bullshit on this because this event doesn't paint Stalin in a good light in the slightest. He got back from siberia a week or so after the february revolution with Kamenev and arrived in Petrograd. At the time Molotov was the chief editor of Pravda and the line he was publishing was that the bourgeois provisional government should be overthrown. Stalin and Kamenev waltzed in and ousted him from his position and switched Pravda's line to advocating a united front of all 'progressive' forces and collaborating with the provisional position on the basis of needing to carry out a bourgeois democratic revolution (much as advocated by the mensheviks). Lenin at the time still in exile in switzerland wrote copious letters to Petrograd outlining the Bolshevik position as being in favour of all power to the soviets, peace and overthrowing the provisional government. Stalin receiving these letters which Lenin intended to be published in Pravda (they later made up the body of the April theses) refused to publish them, dismissing them out of hand and stowing them away.
When Lenin arrived in Russia via the sealed train he was finally able to correct the party line and reject proposals of uniting with the mensheviks. During the party conference in April Stalin had to share a room with Molotov and apologise to him, he also stopped publishing articles in Pravda altogether.
Stalin was significant but his actions in early 1917 were badly miscalculated and he only corrected himself after the April conference.

Attached: Lenin and Stalin.jpg (1174x738, 173.94K)

Regardless if he comes out looking good, it does show that he was an important Bolshevik player at that time. The question wasn't, did Stalin always toe the correct line, but rather, was he actually a prominent Bolshevik before his elevation by Lenin as general secretary. All this very much disproves that "no-one had an idea who Stalin was in the early 20s".

Ahh yes the same Trotsky who described Stalin and all his people as mindless brutes and whose racism pervades his opinion on Stalin from head to toe. Not to mention Trotsky's military 'brilliance' damn near led to the Red Army being crushed. Lenin's negative opinions far out-number and outweigh his praise.

Doesn't mean he led the revolution. He was a Menshevik until 1917

Incorrect. He left the Mensheviks in 1904, a year after the split, over their intent on working with liberal parties. He was non-factional within the RSDLP till 1917. Moreover it was Trotsky that was chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, he was the one who organised and chaired the RevMilSov and Stalin himself acknowledged his critical role in leading the revolution.
t. Stalin in his 'The October Revolution' (1934)

He was a leading member of the Menshevik wing of the reconciliatory faction of the RSDLP. He didn't abandon that position until 1917.

imagine being this much of a historical revisionist

trotsky was literally in charge of the planning and preparing the attack on the provisional government

read a fucking book

“We have a marvelous Georgian who has sat down to write a big article for Prosveshcheniye, for which he has collected all the Austrian and other materials.” (Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 35, page 84.)

“It is terribly difficult to do this; we lack the men! But Preobrazhensky comes along and airily says that Stalin has jobs in two Commissariats. Who among us has not sinned in this way? who has not undertaking several duties at once? And how can we do otherwise? What can we do to preserve the Nationalities; to handle all the Turkestan, Caucasian, and other questions? These are all political questions! They have to be settled. These are questions that have engaged the attention of European states for hundreds of years, and only an infinitesimal number of them have been settled in democratic republics. We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don’t think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin.” (Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 33, page 315)

“Trotsky’s mammoth biography Stalin (1940) not only belittles Stalin’s revolutionary activities but actually sees his life and ‘moral stature’ predetermined by his racially defined genetic composition; after discussing whether or not Stalin had ‘an admixture of Mongolian blood,’ Trotsky decides that in any case he was one perfect type of the national character of southern countries such as Georgia, where, ‘in addition to the so-called Southern type, which is characterized by a combination of lazy shiftlessness and explosive irascibility, one meets cold natures, in whom phlegm is combined with stubbornness and slyness.'”
— Bruce Franklin, Introduction to The Essential Stalin.

It seems Trotsky was fairly racist, but if that can be used to take down all his theories, Engels' thoughts about homosexuality can also be used to discredit all of original marxist thought. Not a trotskyist btw but I think the actual core of his theories should be criticized, not whatever other beliefs the guy may have held that were in many cases a product of his time. Also fuck Stalin anyway.

Turns out it is Trotsky who was nazbol all along.

Attached: what a twist.jpg (425x320, 107.18K)

He wasn’t racist. The beginning of Stalin’s biography is metaphorically comparing him to the cultural stereotype of the ‘Asiatic statesman’

He even explicitly said in the first fucking paragraph that his characterization of Stalin has nothing to do with biology or race.

The only other reason Trotsky gets called racist is because he said the triumph of the communist revolution relies on the most advanced capitalist countries, which at that point resided in Europe.

ANYONE who has actually bothered to read Marx or Engels would agree with that assessment.

This Bruce Franklin extract is extremely reaching. The intro to 'Stalin' contains a brief history of Georgia and features Trotsky quoting a number of characterisations of the Georgian national character, before saying that Stalin doesn't really reflect them nor are they useful, explicitly stating that the view of Georgians as dull and lazy was due to particular material conditions of comparing rural georgians to bourgeois urban armenians. This is a pretty trashy attempt at slander.

He objectively and permanently left the Menshevik wing of the RSDLP in 1904, becoming overtly hostile towards them from 1905 onwards. From then on he was an independent till 1917 trying to bring the party together several times. ironically the anti-splitter.