Edit: I’m from the Global South, I should’ve clarified that on the post. The lesson has been learned.
Many leftist movements, legit or not, call themselves either Trotskyist or Maoist and keep dissing Stalin for his “socialism in one state” policy and “ruining” Comintern and Deng Xiaoping for his “liberal” policies.
I want to know what they are trying to do by distancing themselves from the USSR and PRC while fetishizing Cuba and Vietnam—you’ll only hear them talking about the Vietnam War, btw—and following either the guy who lost the power struggle or a literal Marxist-Leninist who supported one of the refused countries and founding the other.
I’ve always viewed it more as a difference in methodology not philosophy, with a bit of ego thrown into the mix. Stalin represents the domino theory of one state at a time expansion, Trotsky more of a shotgun approach of hitting as many targets at once, and Mao switching from an urban vanguard to planting revolutionary roots in rural areas first. Critiquing movements and revolutions that have established some form of socialist government is healthy, as long as its not just an attack for attack sake. Unfortunately, there are so few examples to analyze, that critique often ends up looking like infighting. We all have the common end goal of destroying the imperialist bourgeoisie.
Trotskyists have no concept of what the imperialist bourgeoisie is and will tar and feather any country as imperialist, including the imperialised.
In their actions and their rhetoric they implicitly support the western imperialists, gumming up and arguing against any alternative not as critical support but in active and constant vitriol and opposition.
Tar and feathering fellow comrades also seems to be constant for some.
We got a term for them: revisionists
That’s a great explanation comrade! I want to use it next time I discuss/argue with other MLs/left-wingers.