Trotskyism- a religion?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Does any one else think that Trotskyism has a rather religious element to it, the fanaticism of Trotskyites and the Messianic cult that Trotsky seems to have amongst his followers?

I was talking some Stalinists (as the Trotskyists in our group have labeled them) the other day on this very issue, the way Trotskyites just spout out aphorisms and constantly repeat this meaningless argument about bureaucracy, never defining bureaucracy or what's bad about it (their argument would still make as much sense if you replaced the word 'bureaucracy' with 'duck'), and treating 'the revolution betrayed' as some infallible text that answers all of life's questions.

What do the comrades here think?

[Tim Cornelis]

I haven't noticed a quasi-religous sect around Trotsky but I'm sure they exist. I've seen this tendency in Marxism-Leninism and variants a lot more.

In fact, in the Netherlands we had a minor political party, I'm note sure which (there were so many splinter parties) but I think it was the KEN(ML), or Communist Unity-Movement Netherlands (Marxist-Leninists), which was a genuine cult. The all powerful leader decided where people lived and with whom, and he even proposed women should attend meetings topless because this would create more openness among the comrades (although I believe he was still in another party then so it was not adopted). Very similar to Jonestown perhaps.

EDIT: Yes, it was the part named above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Unity_Movement_of_the_Netherlands_(Marxi st–Leninist)


By this time De Boer was the leader of KEN(ml).

After [De Boer became the leader] the remnants of KEN(ml) took a yet more sectarian turn. The cadres were directed to live in communes, were all aspects of daily life was under the control of the organization. Many members were expelled, accused of bourgeois deviations. In 1977 the different groups of expellees regrouped as the Group of Marxist-Leninists/Red Dawn.

To elaborate: no relationships were allowed, no contact between children en parents, criticism was not allowed and those critical were "treated" in "collective sessions", this meant they were bullied and made to believe they were bourgeois. De Boer's methods were described as "psycho-terrorism".

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

he even proposed women should attend meetings topless because this would create more openness among the comrades

O wow!

[Искра]

Topless Stalinists :blink:
Wow.... where can I join?

[kashkin]

I'm sure you know of the personality cults which existed in the USSR, China (to an extent still does) and so on. I don't see how Trotskyism is anywhere near as bad as those.

The KEN sounds kinda creepy.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, Trotskyists worship newspapers.

[Искра]

Yes, Trotskyists worship newspapers.
Which remided me of: http://libcom.org/blog/trotspotting-everything-you-always-wanted-know-about-sects-were-afraid-ask-18092009

[RED DAVE]

Does any one else think that Trotskyism has a rather religious element to it, the fanaticism of Trotskyites and the Messianic cult that Trotsky seems to have amongst his followers?What specifically are you talking about? It's easy to pick up impressions or absorb someone else's. Give some examples.


I was talking some Stalinists (as the Trotskyists in our group have labeled them) the other day on this very issueTalking to Stalinists about Trotskyists is like talking to ... Mayor Bloomberg about Occupy Wall Street.


the way Trotskyites just spout out aphorismsGive examples, specifically, from your own observations or reading. Or, ask the Stalinists about specific examples that they have witnessed personally or read.


and constantly repeat this meaningless argument about bureaucracyWhether you agree with it or not, the argument about the bureaucracy in the USSR is far from meaningless. It needs to be addressed soberly and withut hysteria, but it is not meaningless and has constant implications for ongoing politics today.


never defining bureaucracy or what's bad about it (their argument would still make as much sense if you replaced the word 'bureaucracy' with 'duck'),A healthy, intuitive notion of bureaucracy is good enough to start a consideration of the bureaucracy in the USSR. There are very few people who would deny that the bureaucracy was extremely powerful and that this power was, to be judicious, not cool for socialism.


and treating 'the revolution betrayed' as some infallible text that answers all of life's questions.It is far from infallible. It was a good text for when it was published, but even they the bureaucracy had taken on the characteristics of a class.

RED DAVE

[Sasha]

Topless Stalinists :blink:
Wow.... where can I join?


you cant, firstly they where maoist, not stalinist, secondly they, even the splinters form their splinters, dont exist anymore as far as i know.
the story of dutch ML/maoism is quite bizar, see if you can keep up and believe this:

so it all started with the CPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Netherlands) (a massive party once actually an actual political threat who's direct remnants are now mostly in the very individualistic liberal green left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenLeft) and some insignificant hardliners in the NCPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_the_Netherlands))
one of their splits was the maoist split MLCN in 1965 who in 1970 in turn splitted in the KEN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Unity_Movement_of_the_Netherlands_%28Mar xist%E2%80%93Leninist%29) and the MLPN, the MLPN later turned out to be under complete control of the secretservice (BVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_and_Security_Service)) and so where its hoxaist and poll potist sisters. The BVD also had some influential agents in the rodejeugd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Youth_%28Netherlands%29) (a split from another CPN split that also got involved in the MLCN), the rodejeugd split into a RAF wannabe urban guerrilla group (that of course completely failed because of the BVD involvement) and a group that crossed over to the KEN-ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Unity_Movement_of_the_Netherlands_%28Mar xist%E2%80%93Leninist%29).
KEN-ML eventually splitted between the more proletarian and the more student sections, the students kept the name KEN-ML and became the cult like sectarianist group mentioned by goti123 (the later expelled members who didnt want to become a cult regrouped in to the still active but completely insignificant rodemorgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Marxist-Leninists/Red_Dawn)).
which is all really interesting but here comes the kicker;
the proletarian split from the KEN-ML, as you should have understood by now the split from a split from a split from a split all of which have dwindled in insignificant sectarianism, became the KPN-ml who in turn turned, after they dropped their maoism in favor for a social democratic course, into the SP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands%29), a party with 50.000 members and now in the polls poised to become the 3th party of the netherlands even overtaking the Labour party.

history can take very strange turns....

[Tim Cornelis]

you cant, firstly they where maoist, not stalinist, secondly they, even the splinters form their splinters, dont exist anymore as far as i know.
the story of dutch ML/maoism is quite bizar, see if you can keep up and believe this:

so it all started with the CPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Netherlands) (a massive party once actually an actual political threat who's direct remnants are now mostly in the very individualistic liberal green left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenLeft) and some insignificant hardliners in the NCPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Party_of_the_Netherlands))
one of their splits was the maoist split MLCN in 1965 who in 1970 in turn splitted in the KEN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Unity_Movement_of_the_Netherlands_%28Mar xist%E2%80%93Leninist%29) and the MLPN, the MLPN later turned out to be under complete control of the secretservice (BVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_and_Security_Service)) and so where its hoxaist and poll potist sisters. The BVD also had some influential agents in the rodejeugd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Youth_%28Netherlands%29) (a split from another CPN split that also got involved in the MLCN), the rodejeugd split into a RAF wannabe urban guerrilla group (that of course completely failed because of the BVD involvement) and a group that crossed over to the KEN-ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Unity_Movement_of_the_Netherlands_%28Mar xist%E2%80%93Leninist%29).
KEN-ML eventually splitted between the more proletarian and the more student sections, the students kept the name KEN-ML and became the cult like sectarianist group mentioned by goti123 (the later expelled members who didnt want to become a cult regrouped in to the still active but completely insignificant rodemorgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Marxist-Leninists/Red_Dawn)).
which is all really interesting but here comes the kicker;
the proletarian split from the KEN-ML, as you should have understood by now the split from a split from a split from a split all of which have dwindled in insignificant sectarianism, became the KPN-ml who in turn turned, after they dropped their maoism in favor for a social democratic course, into the SP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands%29), a party with 50.000 members and now in the polls poised to become the 3th party of the netherlands even overtaking the Labour party.

history can take very strange turns....

If you summarise it like that it does sound rather strange. However, was the KEN(ml) still Maoist under the leadership of De Boer? I doubt it.

[OHumanista]

I am a Trot and frankly I have never seen a fanatical Trot (though of course I bet some lunatics exist everywhere) Also I don't regard regard Trotsky as anything more than human and I have points where I disagree with him. (not many but...some are rather important). Nor are his works the "Holy Bible of Communism", they are good and just that, I get some ideas from them but they are by no means exlusive.
I even dislike the term "Trotskyism" or any other personal ism, I use it merely because he is the theorist I most identify with ideologically.

I know some other tendencies though that do worship their long dead leaders and constantly enshrine them as perfect and holy :rolleyes:

In any case, I think MLs are definitely not the best source of info on us Trots, talk some of us and others from the more "neutral" tendencies.

EDIT: Also, I am a hardcore skeptic :D

[tir1944]

What exactly does the Trotskyte(IIRC) term "workers in uniforms mean" in its original context?

[Leo]

Does any one else think that Trotskyism has a rather religious element to it, the fanaticism of Trotskyites and the Messianic cult that Trotsky seems to have amongst his followers?
Meh, clearly not as much as Stalinism. More marginal variants of Trotskyists who are more Stalinist in their practices tend to be a bit like that though.

[graymouser]

What exactly does the Trotskyte(IIRC) term "workers in uniforms mean" in its original context?
It was a way of appealing to soldiers to fight against "their own" governments - as the Internationale says, "shoot the generals on [their] own side." There has been a controversy in the Trotskyist tendencies over whether this applies to police or not; Trotsky was pretty clear that it didn't, in "Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It" but some, such as the CWI and IMT, have considered cops to also be "workers in uniform." I've always been with Trotsky, on that question.

The whole question of religion is absurd - we hold Trotsky's writings in high regard but that's all there is to it. You probably just know some young, under-educated and over-enthusiastic cadres.

[Commissar Rykov]

There are probably certain parties or cliques that are fanatical about Trotsky but I am sure that can be said for any tendency in the Revolutionary Left with all kinds of oddball parties that creep up and then disappear into the night after infighting. I would still say the creepiest group in the USA is the RCPUSA I like some of their members but this, "Have you heard the good word of Chairman Bob?" is creepy and extremely off putting.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Give some examples.

Trying to discuss issues or what not, they respond with a Trotsky quote, they then back up that Trotsky quote with another Trotsky quote (a bit like a Christian using bible verses to justify the authenticity of the bible) and then denounce me as a Menshevik.



Talking to Stalinists about Trotskyists is like talking to ... Mayor Bloomberg about Occupy Wall Street.

I talk to plenty of Trotskyites at the Marxist meetings I attend.



Whether you agree with it or not, the argument about the bureaucracy in the USSR is far from meaningless.

But they never define or elaborate, they just say 'bureaucracy' as if that in itself is an argument.


It is far from infallible. It was a good text for when it was published, but even they the bureaucracy had taken on the characteristics of a class.

But it gets a bit silly how much stock they put in it and how much they generalise it to fit all issues, you can ask them where you should take your gf out to lunch, and they responf by quoting chapter 4, paragraph 5 of the revolution betrayed.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I am a Trot and frankly I have never seen a fanatical Trot (though of course I bet some lunatics exist everywhere) Also I don't regard regard Trotsky as anything more than human and I have points where I disagree with him. (not many but...some are rather important). Nor are his works the "Holy Bible of Communism", they are good and just that, I get some ideas from them but they are by no means exlusive.

Cool, the guys I've been hanging around with are waiting for him to rise from the grave and lead them to victory.

[Ilyich]

There are probably certain parties or cliques that are fanatical about Trotsky but I am sure that can be said for any tendency in the Revolutionary Left with all kinds of oddball parties that creep up and then disappear into the night after infighting. I would still say the creepiest group in the USA is the RCPUSA I like some of their members but this, "Have you heard the good word of Chairman Bob?" is creepy and extremely off putting.

http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/08/0508/0504art/bag1.jpg

Kneel before your god, RCPers!

[graymouser]

Trying to discuss issues or what not, they respond with a Trotsky quote, they then back up that Trotsky quote with another Trotsky quote (a bit like a Christian using bible verses to justify the authenticity of the bible) and then denounce me as a Menshevik.
Well, that's poor argumentation from a couple of individuals, and not a substantial discussion of Trotskyism or its merits.


I talk to plenty of Trotskyites at the Marxist meetings I attend.
Trotskyists. The word "Trotskyite" has never been used by anyone to describe themselves. During Trotsky's life, we would have called ourselves "Bolshevik-Leninists," as Trotsky himself preferred; today we use the term "Trotskyist" reluctantly to delineate our politics.


But they never define or elaborate, they just say 'bureaucracy' as if that in itself is an argument.
Again, poor argumentation from a couple of Trotskyists - not indicative of the rather large field of Trotskyism. We only mention the word "bureaucracy" for the most part in relatively technical debates with other socialists, or if giving a precis of what was wrong with the Stalinist USSR. You are meeting some odd and poorly educated Trotskyists, who probably only have a hammer and are seeing everything as a nail.


But it gets a bit silly how much stock they put in it and how much they generalise it to fit all issues, you can ask them where you should take your gf out to lunch, and they responf by quoting chapter 4, paragraph 5 of the revolution betrayed.
Personally, I'm as likely to bring up a text of Marx or Lenin as I am one by Trotsky - or Rosa Luxemburg, or James P. Cannon, or Joseph Hansen or another Trotskyist. Your complaints have literally nothing to do with Trotskyism as a framework for Marxism.

[mickey maoist]

I am fed up with trots spurting out their usual bilge when they quote trotsky. They don't even understand what their saying, its just all dogma. Menshivik.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Does the ism begin with a name?
Then it has a personality cult somewhere.
that simple.

[RED DAVE]

Does the ism begin with a name?
Then it has a personality cult somewhere.
that simple.Then I guess you think that Marxism is "a personality cult somewhere."

Not good thinking, Comrade.

RED DAVE

[o well this is ok I guess]

Then I guess you think that Marxism is "a personality cult somewhere."

Not good thinking, Comrade.

RED DAVE well, why should Marxism be an exception?

[Fawkes]

I wouldn't call it a religion, but it's definitely got it's cultish elements. A stalinist accusing a "trotskyiite" (usage of that term being a surefire way to make you sound like the biggest derp ever) of fanaticism and cult behavior is fucking laughable at best, depressing at worst. Maoists, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Hoxhaists, etc. all have more than their fair share of fanatics. (notice a trend here at all?)


I'm just gonna reiterate that previous point because of how much it annoys me: If you're a stalinist and you refer to trotskyists as trotskyiites, you are a fucking loser. (or just a stalinoid)

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

There may be some cult-like tendencies amongst the Trotskyites but there always is in no matter what group you're looking at, political or otherwise; zealots are a plague upon us all. The only real political cult that comes to mind would be the Jim Jones group or the LaRouchites.

[Red Rabbit]

Trotsky was the son of Karl Marx, sent to Earth to be "crucified" by the evil Dictator Stalin.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Many left sects operate like .... sects. It's not limited to any of the various flavors. There are numerous examples of various degrees of weirdness (Advocating nuclear war and saying socialism will come from space aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_Posadist), having members locked in mental hospitals (http://www.regroupment.org/main/page_appendix_3.html), manipulation, forced labor and theft from members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Federation), psycho-therapeutic abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers_Party), horizontal recruitment and horizontal retention (http://www.revleft.com/vb/horizontal-recruitment-t135782/index.html), hero worship (http://rwor.org/a/249/ba-everywhere-en.html), "gay purges," forcefully splitting up couples and families, forced sex, forced group sex, murder, suicide and more).

The religious aspects are sort of inherent to left wing evangelism and so are pretty widespread.

[A Marxist Historian]

It was a way of appealing to soldiers to fight against "their own" governments - as the Internationale says, "shoot the generals on [their] own side." There has been a controversy in the Trotskyist tendencies over whether this applies to police or not; Trotsky was pretty clear that it didn't, in "Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It" but some, such as the CWI and IMT, have considered cops to also be "workers in uniform." I've always been with Trotsky, on that question.

The whole question of religion is absurd - we hold Trotsky's writings in high regard but that's all there is to it. You probably just know some young, under-educated and over-enthusiastic cadres.

For anyone from a Stalinist or Maoist (if one foolishly makes that distinction) background to call "Trotskyists" cultist is utterly hilarious.

During the '30s all poets in the USSR had to write poems about how Stalin was a mountain eagle, the rising sun, the greatest genius in human history, etc. etc. ad nauseam. If they didn't, bad things happened to them.

And the cult of Mao was, if anything, even more bizarre, obsessive and religious than the cult of Stalin.

Those whacky Jonestown Maoists in Netherlands are not even unusual. The biggest Maoist organization in the USA is the RCP, whose cult of Bob Avakian has taken on truly hilarious proportions.

American Maoism in particular has always had a bizarre cultist side to it. Back in the '70s, there was a song about 'em I liked.

"Who's the leader of the party made for you and me,
M-A-O T-S-E DASH T-U-N-G!
Mao Tse Tung (Lin Piao!)
Mao Tse Tung (er, Chou En Lai!)

Forever let us hold our Red Books High, High, High, High!"

To the tune of "the Mouseketeers" of course.

In the '70s there was an organization called COUS-ML, or maybe it was ACWMML. Went Hoxhaite later. They got famous in Cleveland for actually charging a bunch of cops on horseback waving their Little Red Books in the air and chanting "Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win"! The cops practically fell off their horsebacks laughing at them.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Trying to discuss issues or what not, they respond with a Trotsky quote, they then back up that Trotsky quote with another Trotsky quote (a bit like a Christian using bible verses to justify the authenticity of the bible) and then denounce me as a Menshevik.

If you are in fact a confused Social Democrat, then you should accept Menshevik as a compliment.

-M.H.-




I talk to plenty of Trotskyites at the Marxist meetings I attend.




But they never define or elaborate, they just say 'bureaucracy' as if that in itself is an argument.



But it gets a bit silly how much stock they put in it and how much they generalise it to fit all issues, you can ask them where you should take your gf out to lunch, and they responf by quoting chapter 4, paragraph 5 of the revolution betrayed.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think Trotskyism is cult-ish, per se. In the UK, Trotskyist/quasi-Trot parties (SWP, SPEW) tend to be quite ineffectual and act like confessional sects, but are probably more agreeable, as organisations and as people, than some of the Stalinist sects, to be quite honest, and I find Trotskyists, in general, to be far more in touch than those of Stalinist parties.

I don't really agree with Trotskyism at all, but I get the feeling (SWP aside) that they'd happily participate in a left-democratic process and call non-Leninists comrades, whereas with Stalinists I tend to get the feelign that the minute any of them get any power they'd just try to eliminate the rest of us.

This post is probably more on a personal than a political level, but still.

[blake 3:17]

Ernest Mandel, the great Belgian Trotskyist, wanted to write a history of Trotskyism and its resemblance to the history of the Jesuits. There are definite similarities, and not just the sectarian stuff, but the strong commitment to principle, a belief in a better world and a rejection of utilitarianism.

[Catma]

Care to explain that about utilitarianism?


The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.

[Ocean Seal]

Topless Stalinists :blink:
Wow.... where can I join?
While I do agree that this forum needs more humor and that the members should be less wary of the consequences of their posts, this seems a bit in bad taste. Its not that they were "sexually liberated," but that rather through intimidation, psychological terror, and group dynamics these women were forced to go topless at the whim of a charismatic leader. Its much like those religious leaders who take multiple women as wives-who have to serve them.



Yes, Trotskyists worship newspapers.
Its funny how this post got 18 likes because everyone has run into Trotskyist groups selling them newspapers.

[thefinalmarch]

one of the most unintentionally hilarious threads I've seen recently

[eyeheartlenin]

Ernest Mandel, the great Belgian Trotskyist, wanted to write a history of Trotskyism and its resemblance to the history of the Jesuits. There are definite similarities, and not just the sectarian stuff, but the strong commitment to principle, a belief in a better world and a rejection of utilitarianism.

NB: Stalinists are excused from having to read this post at all, since it mentions both Trotsky and a religious group.

Reading the word, "Jesuit," in the comrade's post, I remembered that Trotsky had himself written about the Jesuits; please forgive the length of the following quotation from Their Morals and Ours (1938). I just think it's intrinsically interesting that a hard-line atheist, like Trotsky (whom I admire enormously) had thought about the Jesuits to such an extent:


In so far as their practical moral philosophy is concerned the Jesuits were not at all worse than other monks or Catholic priests, on the contrary, they were superior to them; in any case, more consistent, bolder, and perspicacious. The Jesuits represented a militant organization, strictly centralized, aggressive, and dangerous not only to enemies but also to allies. In his psychology and method of action the Jesuit of the “heroic” period distinguished himself from an average priest as the warrior of a church from its shopkeeper. We have no reason to idealize either one or the other. But it is altogether unworthy to look upon a fanatic warrior with the eyes of an obtuse and slothful shopkeeper.

If we are to remain in the field of purely formal or psychological similitudes, then it can, if you like, be said that the Bolsheviks appear in relation to the democrats and social-democrats of all hues as did the Jesuits – in relation to the peaceful ecclesiastical hierarchy. Compared to revolutionary Marxists, the social-democrats and centrists appear like morons, or a quack beside a physician: they do not think one problem through to the end, believe in the power of conjuration and cravenly avoid every difficulty, hoping for a miracle. Opportunists are peaceful shopkeepers in socialist ideas while Bolsheviks are its inveterate warriors....

However, the juxtaposition of Bolshevism and Jesuitism still remains completely one-sided and superficial, rather of a literary than historical kind. In accordance with the character and interests of those classes upon which they based themselves, the Jesuits represented reaction, the Protestants, progress.... (Emphases added)

Trotsky's political judgments, however impolite, certainly seem to me to have stood the test of time, and the whole quotation expresses the political seriousness that, in my experience, today's Latin American Trotskyists share with the Old Man.

[SocialistTommy]

Yeah Trotskyism is a religion....just like David Lane was a member of the Black Panther Party.