Trotskyism- a religion?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]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?
[/FONT]

[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/Communi...#8211;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

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]O wow! [/FONT]

[Искра]

Topless Stalinists
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-...d-ask-18092009

[RED DAVE]

[FONT=Arial]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?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]What specifically are you talking about? It's easy to pick up impressions or absorb someone else's. Give some examples.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I was talking some Stalinists (as the Trotskyists in our group have labeled them) the other day on this very issue[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Talking to Stalinists about Trotskyists is like talking to ... Mayor Bloomberg about Occupy Wall Street.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]the way Trotskyites just spout out aphorisms[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Give examples, specifically, from your own observations or reading. Or, ask the Stalinists about specific examples that they have witnessed personally or read.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]and constantly repeat this meaningless argument about bureaucracy[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Whether 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.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]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'),[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]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.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]and treating 'the revolution betrayed' as some infallible text that answers all of life's questions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]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[/FONT][FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]

[Sasha]

Topless Stalinists
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 (a massive party once actually an actual political threat who's direct remnants are now mostly in the very individualistic liberal green left and some insignificant hardliners in the NCPN)
one of their splits was the maoist split MLCN in 1965 who in 1970 in turn splitted in the KEN and the MLPN, the MLPN later turned out to be under complete control of the secretservice (BVD) and so where its hoxaist and poll potist sisters. The BVD also had some influential agents in the rodejeugd (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.
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).
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, 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 (a massive party once actually an actual political threat who's direct remnants are now mostly in the very individualistic liberal green left and some insignificant hardliners in the NCPN)
one of their splits was the maoist split MLCN in 1965 who in 1970 in turn splitted in the KEN and the MLPN, the MLPN later turned out to be under complete control of the secretservice (BVD) and so where its hoxaist and poll potist sisters. The BVD also had some influential agents in the rodejeugd (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.
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).
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, 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

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

[tir1944]

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

[Leo]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]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? [/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]
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.
[/FONT]

[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]

[FONT=Arial]Give some examples.[/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]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.


[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Talking to Stalinists about Trotskyists is like talking to ... Mayor Bloomberg about Occupy Wall Street.[/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]
I talk to plenty of Trotskyites at the Marxist meetings I attend. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Whether you agree with it or not, the argument about the bureaucracy in the USSR is far from meaningless.[/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]But they never define or elaborate, they just say 'bureaucracy' as if that in itself is an argument. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]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. [/FONT]

[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.

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Cool, the guys I've been hanging around with are waiting for him to rise from the grave and lead them to victory. [/FONT]

[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.

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.