Trotskyists claim they seek “unity” and are supposedly against “sectarianism,” and yet rightfully so, they are the most sectarian and the most opportunistic of all “communists,” if they even rightfully deserve to be called communist. Historically, just look at Trotsky’s alliance with the Mensheviks, the liquidators, the formation of the August-Bloc, and his pathetic wishes of forming factions within the Bolsheviks that were immediately shot down by the largest majority of the Party. Unity with Trotskyists is only necessary for immediate goals such as protesting bills passed by congress. But any attempts to unite with Trotskyists for a long term goal or revolution will merely undermine socialism and divide the people. I do not have the exact quote, but I believe comrade Hoxha stated that unity with revisionists and ultra-leftists is unity with anti-communists.
“Trotsky, however, has never had any ‘physiognomy’ at all; the only thing he does have is a habit of changing sides, of skipping from the liberals to the Marxists and back again, of mouthing scraps of catchwords and bombastic parrot phrases.”
“In brief – he is a Kautskyite, that is, he stands for unity with the Kautskyites in the International and with Chkheidze’s parliamentary group in Russia. We are absolutely against such unity … ” (Collected Works, Vol. 43, pp. 515-516).”
“…What a swine this Trotsky is – Left, phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to Sotsial-Demokrat!” (Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 285).”
“It is an adventure in the ideological sense. Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the ‘Lenin-Plekhanov’ bloc, as they like to call it. Trotsky unites all to those whom ideological decay is dear; all those who are not concerned with the defence of Marxism, all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the ‘hero of the hour’ and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.” (Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, Collected Works, Vol. 17, pp. 17-22 – December 1910).
“Trotsky’s dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander… This intriguer and liquidator goes on lying right and left.” (Collected Works, Vol. 35, pp. 40-41).”
“In the very first words of his resolution Trotsky expressed the full spirit of the worst kind of conciliation, ‘conciliation’ in inverted commas, of a sectarian and philistine conciliation, which deals with ‘given persons’ and not the given line of policy, the given spirit the given ideological and political content of Party work.”
“It is in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism; which consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the ‘conciliation’ of Trotsky and Co., which actually renders the most faithful service to the liquidators and otzovists and is therefore an evil that is all the more dangerous to the party, the more cunningly artfully and rhetorically it cloaks itself with professedly pro-party, professedly anti factional declamations.” (Vladimir Lenin, Notes of a Publicist, Collected Works, Vol. 16, June 1910, p 211 – emphasis added).
“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.” (Vladimir Lenin, The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia, Collected Works, Vol. 16 pp. 374-392).
“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.”
Groups and Organizations.
International Socialist Organization: The group formed out of a split with the International Socialist group, and another opposition tendency opposed the IS’s leadership even after the split. From the IS, the ISO and the Workers Power group formed. “By 1986 the IS had decided that a more pluralist sort of socialist organization was required and merged with Workers Power and Socialist Unity to form Solidarity,” and: “In 2001 the ISO was expelled from the International Socialist Tendency (IST) after a dispute between the British SWP and the leadership of the ISO. This dispute was framed by the SWP as a critique of the ISO’s conservative approach to the anti-corporate/anti-capitalist movement. The ISO disputed this claim and criticized the SWP for maintaining what the ISO viewed as an exaggerated perspective for the 1990s, which the SWP termed ‘the 1930s in slow motion.”
United Socialist Workers Party: “It has lost a number of members in splits, most recently to the newly-formed PSOL which it refused to become a part of.”
Committee for a Workers International: “Grant and his supporters sought official faction status within the organization, which was granted for some time, but later was revoked by the leadership when Grant’s followers refused to pay dues to the CWI and after documents leaked indicating that Grant’s faction planned to engineer a split. The revocation of faction status thus expelled Ted Grant and his supporters, who later went on to form the International Marxist Tendency.”
Fourth International: “These tensions developed into a split, leading to the suspension of those parties which had formed the International Committee of the Fourth International late in November 1953.” “Some groups on both sides did not support the movement towards reunification. In the run-up to the 1961 congress of the ISFI the supporters of the Argentine Juan Posadas, a leader of the Latin American Secretariat, found themselves in agreement with the supporters of Michel Pablo in stressing the primacy of the anti-colonial revolution: the majority in the ISFI placed a greater emphasis on developing activity in Europe. However, Posadas and Pablo developed different reactions to the split in Stalinism: Posadas tended towards Mao, while Pablo was closer to Khrushchev and Tito.” “A similar development happened on the ICFI side. By 1961 the ICFI had split politically, the Internationalist Communist Party (PCI) in France and the Socialist Labour League (SLL) in Britain arguing that a workers’ state had not been created in Cuba, putting them at odds with the American SWP and the other organisations in the ICFI. By 1963, the split was also organizational” “This approach was disputed by the tendency of Nahuel Moreno, which split to merge briefly with the tendency led by Pierre Lambert.” “The International severed relations with the LSSP; it supported a split at the LSSP conference”
Fourth International ICR: “However, the convergence decelerated because of Lambert’s support for the government of François Mitterrand. Moreno’s supporters boycotted a General Council of the FI(IC) in the Autumn of 1981 whereupon Lambert declared a split.”
Fourth International Posadist: “When the FI split in 1953 Posadas and his followers sided with Michel Pablo and the International Secretariat of the Fourth International. The Posadists began quarrelling with the majority of the ISFI in 1959 over the question of nuclear war with Posadas being a proponent as, he claimed, it would destroy capitalism and clear the way for socialism. The Posadists finally split with the ISFI in 1962 to form the Fourth International (Posadist). The group initially had a following in several countries, particularly among railway workers in Cuba, tin workers in Bolivia and farm workers in Brazil. At its peak in the late 1960s the Posadists had approximately 1,000 members worldwide.”
International Marxist Tendency: “In late 2009 a dispute developed between the IMT leadership and the leaderships of its sections in Spain and Venezuela. In January 2010, these organisations, together with the group in Colombia and part of the section in Mexico, broke with the IMT and established a new international body, the Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria, the same name as the former IMT section in Venezuela. Minorities in Venezuela and Spain choose to remain with the IMT and set up new sections. The new Venezuelan section launched their newspaper, Lucha de Clases, in April 2010.”
In conclusion, we see that Trotskyists are merely hypocritical in calling for “unity” and “non-dogmatism,” as the majority of Trotskyist organizations were either formed out of splits or underwent numerous splits and “factionilizations” themselves, bother modernly and historically. There are numerous cultists within the Trotskyist movement which further divides them and pits them against everybody else. There are the Heaylites, the Grantites, the Taaffeites, and the Cliffites, all of which are inherently anti-Marxist, often times winding up as mere social-democrats in the end of their botched political careers; and I do mean that sincerly, in the words of Lenin, who noted that Trotsky was a “despicable careerist.” Trotskyism is and always will be merely a fifth column to the workers movements and is anti-Marxist at it’s core.
~Written by Glowstick.