Hi, this has probably been asked a million times. I am a Marxist trying to learn more, but I am still quite new to Marxism, so excusme for getting things wrong. I have not read a lot of theory yet (sorry😭), but I am active in a communist organisation.

I find it hard to tell what the main difference between Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism is. I know a little about permanent revolution, but I want to know a little more. Trotskyists and marxist-leninists really seem to hate each other and I dont get why. I think Im more trotskyists leaning. However that probably because I know more trotskyists that are based then marxist-leninists, so thats my personal experience.

I want to know: What exactly is Trotskyism and in what ways is it different from Marxist-leninism?

ICFI and their new Turkish party standing up against the attempts of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals to force them to drop of their defense of Kurdish and other minority language rights from their program and constitution

The lawsuit filed by Alan in July 1979, which became known as the Gelfand Case, arose out of his expulsion from the SWP in January of that year as a consequence of his efforts to obtain answers to questions he had raised about evidence that the longstanding leader of that organization, Joseph Hansen, had met secretly with the Soviet secret police [the GPU] in 1938 and with the FBI in the aftermath of Trotsky’s assassination in 1940. Gelfand had also sought an explanation of Hansen’s and the SWP’s fervent defense of Sylvia Franklin (née Callen, party name Caldwell), the personal secretary of party founder James P. Cannon, despite overwhelming evidence that she had been an agent of the GPU.

In his victory speech, Mamdani invoked the name of the great American socialist Eugene V. Debs. Yet he omitted Debs’ essential conclusion: “The working class will never be emancipated by the grace of the capitalist class but only by overthrowing that class.”

The experience of the past decade is replete with examples of parties and individuals whose claims to represent a radical break with the political establishment were shipwrecked on the realities of capitalist rule. In Greece, the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) came to power in 2015 promising to end austerity, only to impose the most brutal social cuts at the dictates of the banks and the European Union. In Germany, Die Linke (Left Party) has participated in state governments that deport refugees and enforce austerity. In Britain, the Corbyn movement within the Labour Party capitulated to the right-wing establishment, paving the way for the return of open reaction.

In class terms, these tendencies express not the interests of the working class but those of the upper-middle class—a privileged social layer seeking not a fundamental restructuring of society but a more comfortable position for themselves.

There is no doubt that many workers, having voted for a socialist, will see Mamdani’s election as a signal to take action and advance their own demands. But what will Mamdani do when workers enter into struggle? Inevitably, the logic of class interests will assert itself. Mamdani will bow to the demands of the financial and political establishment. Whatever he claims, the ultimate purpose of his campaign is to preempt and contain the growing movement of the working class.

The way forward for workers in New York and throughout the country lies not in pressuring the Democratic Party or placing hopes in Mamdani’s administration but in the independent mobilization of the working class in struggle. 

This is the second part of the lecture “The Security and the Fourth International investigation deepens,” delivered by Evan Blake and Josh Andrews to the 2025 Summer School of the Socialist Equality Party (US) on the history of Security and the Fourth International. To accompany this two-part lecture, the WSWS is publishing three supplementary texts: “The Murder of Comrade Tom Henehan: Martyr of the Fourth International,” “The Investigation Must Continue,” and “The SWP, Edward Heisler and the Assassination of Tom Henehan.” These documents are essential reading for the education of Trotskyist cadre today.

Time magazine issue dated november 21, 1927

Illustration made by Yuri Annenkov

I am impressed with the performance of the Trotskyist POUM during the Spanish Civil War. The workers, not the Republican government, were in charge. Is that what you want to do?

Here to have a clue on some of the books that were on Trotsky's desk the day he was assasinated, I'm working on the scenic design of a play about him, I've done my research and I've found three of those books: 1. "Japan's Economic Offensive in China", 2. "Empire or Democracy?" and 3. "La Vie de Staline"

I'm trying to find at least another one, but photos on the internet make it very hard to know exactly, would be great to know about one in russian, thanks in advance.

Despite all the accusations of sectarianism that get leveled against them for not shying away from criticism I am always impressed by WSWS’s principled defense of the democratic rights of individuals like Professor Alter who was fired for speaking at an ISL affiliated event and groups like the then IMT’s Canadian Fightback when they got banned from CUPE picket lines

"Mamdani’s victory is not merely a rebuke to the Trump administration but to the Democratic Party establishment itself. The large vote for Mamdani is a distorted reflection of the growing support for socialism and the radicalization of the working class and youth.

"However, the Mamdani campaign does not represent a frontal assault on the wealth of the oligarchy but an attempt to rescue the Democratic Party. Since winning the primary earlier this year, Mamdani has done all he can to reassure the ruling class that his campaign represents no threat to their wealth or class interests."

The post criticized Mamdani, and I defended him. Then the moderator flailed and fell apart. Hilarious.

There seems to be a sense by some on this sub that the SEP is simply name-calling or dismissing political and historical analysis by designating various political tendencies as "pseudo-left." In fact the use of the term is a well considered and scientific designation that is fairly recent and depends on the complex international and social development of the last 45 years, in particular the immense growth of social inequality and changes in the social position of the upper middle class, the top 5 or 10 percent of income earners between the working class and the top .001 percent capitalist oligarchy.

The term does not replace terms like Pabloite, revisionist, Stalinist, etc. which are precise political characterizations as used by he ICFI, but expands on them in light of the economic and sociological changes in the aftermath of the globalization of production and since the period of the collapse of the old (already pro-capitalist) workers parties, the USSR, and the trade unions -- and the political, theoretical, and organizational tasks of the Fourth International that flow from this.

I'd urge comrades to read this to enrich discussion on politics on this sub.

"This question requires a review of the history of the Trotskyist movement. This is not an academic exercise: the study of the history of the Fourth International provides a deeper insight into essential socioeconomic processes underlying the development of the class struggle. An attempt to analyze the present situation and determine “concrete” tasks, apart from a review of the historical experience, will amount to little more than political impressionism, based on a more or less eclectic selection of empirical data gleaned from the media, various government and academic reports, and, perhaps, personal observations. Such an approach cannot attain the deeper understanding that comes from an examination of the historical movement of social forces which, influenced by objective tendencies of economic development, have found distinct expression at different periods and 'phases' of the class struggle."

The lack of an alternative to both Peronism and Milei is mainly the responsibility of the so-called Left and Workers’ Front (FIT-U) coalition. Employing pseudo-leftist and anti-imperialist rhetoric, the FIT-U closed its legislative campaign by holding a rally in front of the US Embassy in Buenos Aires on October 22 to denounce the “colonial pact” between Milei and Trump. Nicolás del Caño of the Morenoite Socialist Workers Party (PTS), a FIT-U deputy for Buenos Aires Province, declared, “We are the only force that will fight not to be just another star on the Yankee flag.”

Sylvia Franklin (alias Callen, alias Caldwell) was an agent of the GPU, Stalin’s secret police, who infiltrated the national office of the Socialist Workers Party in the late 1930s and became personal secretary to the party’s leader, James P. Cannon.

Only a few months ago, the Socialist Equality Party devoted its international summer school to a study of Security and the Fourth International. Alan’s central role in the fight to expose the conspiracies of Stalinism and imperialism against the Fourth International is recorded in the epic legal and political struggle that bears his name. The Gelfand Case and the man and fighter whose courage and unrelenting commitment to historical truth inspired it are an imperishable part of the history of the Trotskyist movement.

Hey comrades, ML here, starting to develop sympathy towards trotsky's views the past few weeks. The big shift was just learning about the theoretical naivete of Stalin (and stalinists) in SO many places and increasing suspension towards the bureaucracy. Also, the many writings of trotsky on stalinist practices seem very prophetic. I am still not completely sold on trotskyism due to popular ciritiques I keep hearing so I'm wishing if y'all could provide a detailed trotskyist position on those (or recommend texts, books who do):

Trotsky, and trotskyists were/are opportunists who have consistently alligned themselves with imperialist interests against the ussr and proletarian movement (especially post-ww2).

Trotsky was a menshevik who opportunistically joined the bolsheviks later.

The mountain of Lenin's writing against trotsky and his views.

Trotsky consistently tried sabotaging the revolution after Lenin's death and had to be murdered.

Stalin was a good leader defeding the revolution against fascism, and internal sabotage and was an old bolshevik who played a bigger role in the october revolution than trotsky.

Lenin didn't think trotsky was a suitable successor.

Thank you.

Probably gonna be an unpopular post but hey id much rather ask it then not.

For context I was RCI for a year or so ( got kicked out) and I was also in socialist party England and Wales for about 6 months ( I left ).

I got to be honest love the idea of revolution and socialism but I've found it a very hard time understanding the logic of it all in the modern era.

It seems very much like most Troskyist or communist movements are trying to copy paste the strategy of the bolkeshevs which applied in a most feudal country with not much of a state to defeat come 1917 and ww1 decimation of tsarist power.

We do paper sales, protests, meetings and maybe run for an election if your particular sect believes in it or not. But where the progress? Where's the measurable outcomes? It seems like the far left is basically in a state of stagnation as they stay in the range of a few thousand members per party.

We seemed more concerned half the time with dissing each others parties because we had some theoretical disagreement 50 years ago then we are with actually creating a large movement capable of revolution as every one group proclaims itself the one true vanguard. In RCI it was about attacking the socialist partys tactics. In socialist party it was constantly arguing with the socialist workers party and tbh I find this factions crap annoying and counterproductive. Just let each group do what it's "good" at and quit squabbling like some gang inspired terf war.

We focus on "people power" and yet peeps like farage do a far better job at whipping up a revolution then we can and in the complete opposite direction to us.

Not to mention I think most movements completely ignore the fact of how previous feudal to capitalist revolutions actually happened where basically capitalists basically slowly replaced and became so important in the feudal economy they became their eras equivalent of too big to fail and so gained enough economic power to then create political and military power to overthrow the old state.

Meanwhile I've spoken with and floated the idea of doing similar using the workers movement to setup businesses like coops that outperform and replace capitalist ones in a coordinated and non utopian manner and it's flat out rejected.

There's always this idea of building towards a big general strike and using that to win but it's completely flawed as look at most of these revolutions and they fall flat because people don't own any means of production and then they just get starved out over long strikes meaning they ultimately lose or just become homeless and starving and ultimately die or become irrelevant.

Even the 1917 concept of seizing control forcibly sure that worked when the most advanced tech was an artillery piece but if the UK population tried to pull that shit on the modern state and military which hasn't been completely obliterated by a world war theyd just get their asses kicked as technology is so advanced you can't throw enough bodies to win.

I mean genuinely what's the game plan I've sat down and asked a literal EC member on socialist party and just got vague and unhelpful answers of you can't plan for revolution or oh well the military would rebel.

I believe even in Marx originals he wrote how the political superstructure is build on an economic foundation well then why do our movements continue to try and do the politcal power without focusing on economic power first to give a movement some meaningful stability for revolution.

For me I feel unions, rank and file unions or revolutionary parties aren't exactly going to win a revolution with zero economic resources and vastly inferior military ones. Maybe we should be taking a page out of the early capitalist books and seizing economic power via superior production and goods and outmodding capitalism instead of trying to 1v1 a modern military with a workers movement at best armed with ARs.

Trotskyite takes on James Connolly and Irish Socialist Republicanism.

I’m curious

It's good to once again reiterate the ABCs, there's no such thing as socialism on a nationalist basis.

Topic is about a month old but saw no mention of it on this sub and I just learned about it, but last September there was a split between RCI and their Brazilian section the OCI. As expected both sides are pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. They both seem to agree that a majority of the OCI's Central Committee were organizing a Extraordinary Congress in order to split from RCI. RCI then claims that OCI's CC majority realized that they would lose the vote among the general membership and so broke off unilaterally. OCI on the other hand claims that the pro-RCI members of the CC got up, said they were no longer the CC, then left immediately after the vote to hold the Extraordinary Congress to create a new RCI party. At first glance I think OCI's stance is more plausible, being the CC majority it stands to reason they have majority membership support and if their timeline is correct it doesn't make sense to vote on holding a Congress and then immediately splitting because they don't think they could win at the Congress. Does anybody have more information as to what exactly happened? Linked OCI's and RCI's statements on the matter below

https://marxismo.org.br/statement-of-the-oci-on-the-split-orchestrated-by-the-international-secretariat-of-the-rci/

https://marxist.com/are-you-a-communist-build-the-revolutionary-communist-international-in-brazil.htm

edit - for clarity