More languages
More actions
Trots predominate Communism in the UK and Latin America, aka that have no significant hold of Communism in general ***and*** that's why UK and Latin America are cooked.
UK is just generally imperialist so no surprise here
Latin America has no serious Communist foothold outside Cuba.
In LatAm Trot 'praxis' is socdem in practice. And socdems rule in Latin America, socdems all the way down
Trots are a peculiar variant of ideology that is increasingly losing relevance in the 21st century
My experience with LatAm and the West is that Trots is they don't give a fuck about indigenous people
And that they are constantly allied with the West
Must be because they decry every successful national liberation movement by indigenous people in the world, especially the ones that are successfully socialist
They prevent the consolidation of national liberation which is a prerequisite for any future socialist development
Just focus on the indigenous liberation and everything is crystal clear
A prime example is the socdem-Trot alliance in LatAm
Trotskyism has a historical blind spot towards the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and, by extension, indigenous communities whose struggles are often deeply tied to the land and are not purely "proletarian" in the classical sense. They see indigenous demands for autonomy and territory as "particularistic" or even "backward," disrupting the "universal" class struggle of the urban proletariat.
Their political practice often leads them to prioritize work within the organized urban working class, student movements, and trade unions—the very sectors where the ideology of Latinidad and mestizo identity is most hegemonic. They tail this consciousness instead of challenging it with a proletarian-internationalist line that centers the most oppressed nations and peoples within the state.
Their political practice often leads them to prioritize work within the organized urban working class, student movements, and trade unions—the very sectors where the ideology of Latinidad and mestizo identity is most hegemonic. They tail this consciousness instead of challenging it with a proletarian-internationalist line that centers the most oppressed nations and peoples within the state.
While they formally denounce class collaboration, their practice often leads them into broad alliances with social democrats, liberals, and "progressive" bourgeois sectors under the banner of fighting the far right or imperialism. In Latin America, this "broad front" is often built upon the very criollo and mestizo political culture of Latinidad. To maintain this alliance, they soft-pedal or outright abandon the specific demands of indigenous peoples, which are seen as "divisive" to the broader (i.e., mestizo-led) movement.
Because they oppose the ML concept of building socialism in a specific national context, they are often hostile to processes that consolidate state power to defend against imperialism if that state has a significant indigenous population with autonomous demands. They see this as a "betrayal" of world revolution, failing to understand that the defense of a sovereign state against imperialism is a prerequisite for any further social advance, including the resolution of the national question.
In Chile, the socdem-Trot alliance within the former Concertación and now the Frente Amplio has consistently subordinated the Mapuche struggle for land and autonomy to the logic of bourgeois electoralism and a "rights-based" framework within the existing colonial state. They offer reforms and legalisms but oppose the revolutionary national liberation of the Mapuche nation, as it challenges the unity of the Chilean bourgeois state they seek to administrate.
We must understand that the anti-imperialist struggle in Latin America is inextricably linked to the liberation of its indigenous and Afro-descendant nations. There is no defeating imperialism without defeating the internal colonialism that it relies upon.
This means the working class of the oppressor nation (in this case, the mestizo caste in a position of relative privilege) must champion the cause of the oppressed nations within the state.
Thus the Trotskyist-Social-Democrat alliance is a Latinidad/Hispanidad chauvinist movement, is an alliance of convenience between a distorted "socialism" that has abandoned Leninism on the national question, and a bourgeois nationalism that is inherently colonial and anti-indigenous.
That chauvinism is why Trotskyism has any relevance in the UK and Latin America, two places where the colonial-imperial chauvinism is strong.
In the UK, it is the "left" manifestation of the chauvinism that benefits from imperialism.
In Latin America, it is the "left" manifestation of the criollo/mestizo chauvinism that benefits from internal colonialism.
In both cases, it acts as a brake on genuine proletarian internationalism, which must be fundamentally anti-imperialist and anti-colonial.
This is why the struggle against Trotskyism is not a sectarian squabble but a necessary ideological struggle to clear the path for a correct Marxist-Leninist line that unflinchingly supports the right of nations to self-determination and learns from the victorious anti-colonial struggles of the Global South.
The class reductionism is strong with the Trots
They will fade away.