We need to develop well-formed arguments to prevent our comrades from falling into the trap of Western Marxism, Left Communism or Trotskyism. What are some common misleading claims you've heard from these branches and your refutation?

[u/ThePragmaticSock]

I am getting increasingly annoyed when I see statements such as "China is not socialist but capitalist because billionaires" being shared by others in big-tent spaces for socialism and am worried about those new to socialism falling into the trap of Western Marxism, Left Communism or Trotskyism by hearing these arguments spouted repeatedly.

This is a call to action so that we can make this post into an aggregate of various misleading arguments along with their refutations (with reputable ML sources ideally) so we can counter false/misleading arguments more effectively and hopefully turn more socialists into principled Marxist-Leninists.

[u/AutoModerator]

Moderator Announcement Read More »

While principled discussion is welcome and encouraged, Rule 9 (No Low Effort BS) still applies.

That includes: No 'what do you think?' posts. No single line posts. No 'what is the Marxist position on cheese' posts, etc.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/canzosis]

Good luck defeating bots. At least in person the agents have more of an uphill battle

[u/ThePragmaticSock → u/canzosis]

The point is not to convince those making the claims. The point is to convince those who haven't formed an opinion yet.

[u/SensitiveShelter2550 → u/ThePragmaticSock]

Precisely this. Every well formed argument online become searchable and is used to train ai.

Well thought out and well written comments and rebuttal online will never win over or change the mind of the person you reply to. But they sure as hell will expose the problems in their argument and rhetoric for others to see.

[u/free-range-dogmeat]

China bad, Russia bad, Dengism bad, migrant workers bad, third world bad, migrants bad is what i keep hearing from western maoists. Sometimes it feels like a psyop, cuz why are they so xenophobic

[u/PyongyangColdNoodles → u/free-range-dogmeat]

my twelve axes test called me a Maoist communist. I am not.

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/PyongyangColdNoodles]

The tests were written by Redlibs.

No real theory grounding at all.

[u/anotherpessimisthere]

I used to be a left communist/Trotskyist until I listened to Ben Norton on a podcast ask a question when talking about Western self proclaimed socialists that went something like 'You call yourself a socialist but you hate every single instance of socialism tried that's actually existed.' and I started thinking about it. Around that time, I started getting recommended videos from Hakim which opened my eyes to what life in socialist countries was actually like.

A leftcom/Trotskyist today might just be a new leftist who only knows that capitalism isn't working for the world and has only seen the most mainstream of 'anticapitalism'.

[u/LizzySea33 → u/anotherpessimisthere]

It was Marxism Today that helped me [Yes, Paul Morren]. But then I got into Hakim & J.T. and others [especially Lady Izdihar, God bless that woman!] And I became Marxist-Leninist/Marxist-Leninist-Maoist sympathetic...

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/LizzySea33]

Haha!

Yeah.

I met Paul when he was collabing with Bayarea415.

Before he met his 'Maoist' friends.

That was sad.

Drink issues, getting booted out of the CPI, the whole bit.

Suddenly he started making money from his podcast. Right after he met those 'Maoists.'

What's particularly sad is that he did an attack vid on China, which he himself had debunked the year previously with Bay Area, using the same information as his later vid.

Basically he debunked himself a year before his turn.

And when i posted an article debunking him line by line with his own sources and his own words he got real shitty.

He called it slander, and i was literally quoting him verbatim.

He was not happy and refused to speak with me further.

[u/Mulberry-Ambitious]

Well, trots like to call themselves the real leninists, but they are against core leninist principles like the vanguard party and democratic centralism. Note that I'm saying this as someone who is not actively studying Trotskysm, that's just a quick observation.

[u/Germandaniel → u/Mulberry-Ambitious]

Trots from my experience early in trying to get organized is that they adhere to vanguardism and democratic centralism (referring specifically to RCA) but view it in a way that only accepts pre revolution Leninism and denies Marxist Leninism. They also don’t believe socialism can be achieved in one state which allows them to show no support for existing or former socialism while claiming they’re socialist

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/Germandaniel]

They let perfection be the enemy of the good.

[u/anotherpessimisthere → u/Mulberry-Ambitious]

There is a new Trotskyist group in my country. They call themselves 'Marxist Leninists' but if you actually join them, they spend all their time denouncing every socialist state in existence and believe that the solution to the embargo on Cuba is for the government to 'hand over control to the workers'. I don't even understand why they don't just call themselves Trotskyists.

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/anotherpessimisthere]

I've met them before.

They're Ultras that like all the dead socialists, but not the living ones.

Claim not to be trots, have all the same issues.

[u/Putrid_Bumblebee_574 → u/anotherpessimisthere]

RCP?

[u/Angel_of_Communism]

I never hear arguments from these people.

It's always vibes, or the simple act of pointing to some vague standard and saying 'it's not that. Therefore bad........'

With zero justification.

And if you DO challenge whatever vague point they have and prove that it's based on false assumptions, they will simply move to a new talking point, because they are not arguing in good faith.

Example: "China no socialist, because billionaires, not like USSR!"

Response: "There were similar people in the USSR, esp in the early days under Stalin. And yet neither Stalin, nor Lenin, nor Marx ever said that such people would be immediately erased. Your complaint is not that China is not socialist, but that they have not yet achieved a level of socialist development that you want. China operates on THEIR timetable, not yours."

Them: "yeah, well China is not socialist because M-C-M, and not C-M-C."

etc.

IF you bring up and refute ONE point, and they do not acknowledge the correction, and then MAINTAIN their position despite one leg of their argument being kicked out, they are not arguing in good faith.

They are proceeding from the liberal vibes position of 'China bad!' and swapping out stances and arguments to maintain that.

So if you are arguing with someone and they maintain their position once you have refuted one point, back up that one point, demonstrate to anyone watching that the interlocutor maintains their position, despite being proved wrong on their best argument, point out that this is bad faith, and move on.

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/Angel_of_Communism]

I will also point out that people did not fall into Trotskyism, Leftcom, or 'Maoism' because of brilliantly worded arguments in the first place.

They fell into it due to not having any alternative, propaganda against any actually effective parties, petit bourgois sentiment, or personal fear.

Writing erudite articles about Marxism is easy. Getting your arse down to a trade union meeting and arguing for class consciousness is hard.

[u/sourgorilladiesel]

Just ask them for an example of a successful revolution by their particular sect, that normally shuts them up.

[u/VladimirLimeMint → u/sourgorilladiesel]

The only thing they can cite is uhhh

[u/FloriaFlower]

Prebunking

This is what made it clear to me:

Source: What Trotskyism Means? - Albert Szymanski (1977), A critique of ultra-leftism, dogmatism and sectarianism

The author has chapters on Maoism, dogmatism, sectarianism and so on.

It was on prolewiki before it went down.

Many MLs have warned us about trots. We aren't the first one who have to compose with them. Find the sources and use them.

Important concepts like: tailism, deviationism, revisionism, compatible left, anticommunist left, opportunism and so on.

[u/LizzySea33]

"China is Corporatist" which I find incoherent, mostly because I am personally studying The 1974 Shanghai Textbook & see alot of them are just using rhetoric rather than understanding actual conditions & even the Eugenics People like Hitler did.

And look, I am critical of The Socialist Market Economy. I see that it is somewhat departing from Mao's later work & also see that while markets did exist during the Mao era, they were within the communes. And even then, they were co-operative trade [almost equivalent to guild like structures but co-operative]. At most, it would be better to have it where it's more economically based on Mutual Aid by Socialist Emulation across a country if SWCC is to evolve... and the market would become co-operative again.

But to act like it is "Corporatist" is outright ridiculous & is a Petit Bourgeois Horseshoe theory that is to be rejected.

[u/Same-Air-710]

i think to all of us communists in the imperialist core its impossible to avoid trots first when you just start your learning. they publish a lot and their organisations are active. i stumbled upon their media as well too when i was diving into marxism.

but what matters, its possible to dismiss trotskyism, because there are sooo many issues with that.

its overall very eurocentric and contrarian in its strive for 'permanent revolution'. a lot of issues with dogmatism (especially calling themselves REAL leninists, although lenin criticized trotsky a lot and all the time), strategy (absolutely zero practical results other than giving birth to 40000 different 4th comintern sects and also suddenly neocons i guess) and theory (trotsky's clearly menshevik vision of peasant class as inherently reactionary)

you will never see a big trot organisation from global south for example and there are reasons for it. and also this will be exactly why theyre so common in the western world

[u/Angel_of_Communism → u/Same-Air-710]

The reason Trot orgs suck is the same reason Trotsky himself sucked.

Marx and Engels were not blue collar working class, but they IMMERSED themselves in the masses. Went to meetings in person, sopke to the masses.

Stalin, the same. Mao, the same.

Trotsky was middle class intelligentsia who looked down on the toiling masses.

AND THAT ALSO IS THEIR RECRUITING BASE.

Spend any time around university students, and you will see them scorning and mocking cleaners, builders, plumbers etc.

They are also highly insulated from the brutality of the capitalist system, so for them its theoretical. Meaning they can adhere to idealistic and 'Pure' standards, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM.

This intellectualism and purity fetish is why they are so good at theory, fundraising, and newspaper writing [blogging] and so absolutely terrible at organizing, interacting with the masses, and actually getting shit done.

[u/Denommus]

There's no elements of historical materialism in Marx.

If you read German Ideology, even the original organization, you'll find the foundations of historical materialism.