So a bit of context, the EFF is a prominent pan-African, ostensibly ML leftist party in South Africa. This is an FAQ from early 2024, that same year the country had an election in late May. Personally, I don't think the EFF arrived at these sentiments wanting to appeal to western liberals or whatever. If you know anything about Malema or the EFF, you'd know that they are not concerned with playing soft with right-wingers, much to the chagrin of the compromised ANC and white supremacist "Democratic" Alliance. Not sure who wrote it, but from the writing style I think it might have been written by either Shivambu or Malema himself.
Some quotes for those who don't want to read:
Stalin and Mao were NOT Marxists, they were actually quite anti-Marxist in that they led regimes based not on democratic control of the state by the workers, but rather based on totalitarian control by an elite stratum of bureaucrats who were a parasite on the workers' state.
The Stalinists were terrified of any potential opposition, and especially the intellectuals that they could not control. They were snuffed out, in many cases quite literally. Individual expression was portrayed as counter-revolutionary, even culture was subjugated to the "collective will" - not of society but of a handful of bureaucrats desperate to cling on to their power and privilege.
Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern's formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world.
Trotskyist detected; opinion rejected.
Yep, instant red flag there. No one mentions Trotsky in a positive light unless they are a Trotskyist.
This made me laugh. It should probably be enshrined as a quote somewhere.
I am glad you found it humorous, but I am serious: I have never heard of anyone mentioning Trotsky in a positive light (or even talking about them that much outside of criticisms towards Trotsky) that was not a Trotskyite.
As for Hoxha? No one talks about them AT ALL except for Hoxhaists ... I am dead serious. Hoxha is not relevant enough for Marxist-Leninists to even consider criticizing because Hoxhaism is fringe (I think), so the only people really talking a lot about Hoxha are Hoxhaists.
To be fair, I don't think Trotsky is that horrible. He did sowed division among the party in many occasions and did deserve to be expelled from the party. But he was an important revolutionary and had a very important role during the civil war as commander of the Red Army. I think he also wrote a good book on the history of the revolution, which was recommended by some ML friends as well (I haven't read it yet, though).
The problem of Trots is they fantasize about an alternative reality with Trotsky in the command of the USSR that is completely counter factual. Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were together in the party when the Bolsheviks sent away many intellectuals and possible oppositors to exile, not to mention the Kronstadt sailors episode, when Trotsky did not hesitate to massacre the rebellion. He was even in favor of having full control of the unions by the party, with a militarized working class. So in the end, Trots believe in a democratic and pluralistic Trotsky that never existed in the first place.
His success are overestimated tbh, he didn't have the authority to continue the war at Brest Livotsk, took the decision alone and then convinced the central committee to go along with it. Nobody in such an important position should be doing stuff like this, and that was frankly a warning sign that he could not be trusted with any sort of authority.
If he'd been living in China today, the CPC would have allowed him to be at most a restricted translator or a low-level archival researcher in an institution like the Party History Research Office before revoking his membership lol. But nowhere close to the free reign he enjoyed.
But his orders were to negotiate a peace deal. Lenin was furious with him when the Germans resumed the war and he was against trotskys actions from the start (which directly contradicts the trot claim that he was lenin's best friend lol). After the bolsheviks were forced to sign the much harsher final peace treaty, he was removed as commissar of foreign affairs and put in charge of the red army. Where I also heard his successes there were overstated (incl at kronstadt) but I'd have to look at the specifics again. For one thing though trotsky was clear about this himself he was not in charge of the actual fight to put down the rebellion, he only voted for it along with other bolsheviks.
(edited for clarity)
I know your comment touches on his insubordination at Brest-Litovsk, but this thread is reminding me of another Trotsky tidbit from the Russian Civil War.
The context has to do with the formation of the Red Army to defend from counterrevolution in 1919. A faction of the party congress known as the "Military Opposition" erroneously supported keeping the Red Army as a group of guerilla fighters instead of a regular army, but they had some legitimate gripes with one of the largest proponents of the latter and correct course. I speak, of course, of Trotsky.
Considering how many Trotskyite screeds are distortions about what Stalin did to muh Old Bolsheviks in the 1930s, I had whiplash the first time I read that paragraph.
oh yeah, there's apparently a picture of the cadre laughing with each other when the motion to expel trotsky from the party passed, but I'm not sure if someone just made the backstory up lol. By that time he was pretty widely hated, huge individualist and did not feel party procedure applied to him. this is not someone you can have in any important positions - imagine making him party secretary. he would have been what trotskyists say stalin was.
Yes, the number of times Lenin roasted Trotsky in the Soviet congress were countless. This info about his role being less than it was I am not aware. I mean, I know the role of the commissars of the Red Army wasn't of commanding the troops, but more akin to approving and disapproving decisions and keeping an eye on the ex-Tsar officials to avoid betrayal. But Trotsky became famous for this role.
he seems like the kind of guy who kept falling upwards as we say throughout his life. as you said he kept trying to split the party, was warned repeatedly over it, and even with consequences he kept doing it. there's no proof Stalin or even the USSR sent the assassin after him too, it's just an assumption we all make. It's certainly probable especially as other attempts had been carried against Trotsky before, but just as possible that Mercader acted on his own/mostly on his own. Either way everything that ties it to Stalin came from well after the fact from witnesses and conspirators, in the late 80s and early 90s, when it was trendy to hate on Stalin and anyone with some story to sell was trying to sell it (understandable tbh in the economic conditions).
What do you think about the anti-Stalin stance he had and his dispute with Lenin over trade unions?
I think his anti-Stalin stance was less about fixing the party line than it was a power play. And I think Stalin outplayed him and the other bolsheviks that sided with him. I have no idea if Trotsky was in power things would have turned more democratic or anything. This is mere speculation of Trots.
It was funny because of how true it is.
Both the Trotsky part and the Hoxha part? Yeah you can just tell if they are a Trotskyist or a Hoxhaist by a few details, and it is always funny reading a text that seems theoretically sound, until you come across some mention of "permanent revolution" or "anti-revisionism" and then you explode from the absurdity of being able to recognize them off of only a few details.
I mean, I knew that already about the EFF. I'm personally not sure what to say, in my experience Trotskyism seems weirdly common outside of SAFTU and the tripartite alliance. By no means do I think the EFF or whomever are a psyop, and I think it'd be erroneous to attribute this to some fetish for matyrdom and defeat given the actual platform of the EFF.
The most important thing is not if they have a martyrdom tendency, but the fact that they are Trotskyist (which is an opportunist trend).
Oh I know. It's just that I was sure someone was going to invoke Manoel's words on the western Left's Christian-esque celebration of defeat and martyrdom. EFF being opportunist would be disappointing, but I'm not sure where it's trotskyism comes from. Trots in SA are unfortunately a thing, but I feel it might've taken root partially because of the biggest ML formations (with exception of SAFTU) getting too comfortable with post-Mandela ANC's rightist turn. Trots are still wrong of course, but I don't think it gained prominence out of nowhere.