Within the realm of left-wing campus discourse, one name looms fairly large – communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky. It is easy to find Trotskyites on college campuses and has been since at least the 1960s, while finding adherents of Lenin, Mao, and, especially, Stalin is much harder. This raises the question as to why this is. Trotsky was, of course, a Jew, something that was not missed by his Tsarist opponents in early 20th century and is certainly not overlooked by today’s Dissident Right. However, the Campus Left’s infatuation with him warrants a great deal of study, as it offers important insights into how they operate. It is also important because Trotsky was killed by an agent of Stalin, meaning he’s not easy to portray as a martyr killed by capitalists, which explains why college commies love Che Guevara. The support of Trotsky then requires more attention.
Part of the reason for the support of Trotsky comes down to wishful thinking and alternative history. To simplify things a bit, outside anti-revisionist communists who openly support Stalin (a distinct minority in North America and Western Europe), when historians debate the reasons why the Soviet Union became a horrible dictatorship, it normally comes down to three theories: 1) communism contains within it the seeds of dictatorship, 2) because Tsarist Russia was an autocracy, the communists ended up following this same path when they took power, and 3) Joseph Stalin transformed the country into his own personal dictatorship and installed or supported men of a similar disposition throughout the Soviet Bloc after World War II.
Now, as a hardline anti-communist, I support the first theory, but of a communist cannot subscribe to this, so that leaves them with either the second or third. The problem with second theory is that it implies that communism cannot really radically transform societies as it claims. If communism can usher in a perfect world order, then it should be able to remake Russia into its own absolute ideology. That leaves the final theory as the most popular one. And, that is why Trotsky is so important. As Stalin’s chief rival and had he taken power after Lenin died rather than Stalin, the Soviet Union would have eventually developed into a democracy and communism would not have been tainted by the Stalinist nightmare (according to the college commies).
In case you were wondering, that final theory has been debunked by the opening of the Soviet archives. There is no way an intellectually honest person can believe it today; the simple fact is that Lenin also ran a dictatorship. To understand why so many leftists hold Trotsky in high regard, we must comprehend a few things about him and his relationship to Stalin, as this will give important insight into the minds of young leftists and why they end up losing their own revolution. Whatever one may say of Trotsky, he was certainly highly educated, coming from the Russian intellectual class which rejected Tsarism and made a strong move towards communism in the last days of Imperial Russia. He was a polyglot and versed in multiple aspects of Far Left political theory. Conversely, Stalin was not. He was a thug and not very well educated. A seminary dropout turned bank robber before becoming a revolutionary, Stalin was not even aware, according to multiple people, that Holland and the Netherlands were the same country. But, he did understand the importance of brute force and dispatched any threat to his power in savage fashion. Trotsky got an ice pick in the back of his skull while in exile in Mexico.
Right after the Cold War ended, Eugene Byrne and Kim Newman wrote a book called Back in the USSA, an alternative history where the United States had a communist revolution in 1917 but Russia did not. The book is certainly fascinating and incorporates fictional characters into its narrative, which I thought was a nice touch. Charles Foster Kane (from Citizen Kane) is the book’s equivalent to Tsar Nicholas II, while Rambo trains communist guerrillas in Southeast Asia. In the book, Al Capone becomes a Joseph Stalin character and I think it fits. It actually strikes me as rather plausible. Both men gained power by brutish thuggery, killing the intellectuals that stood in their way. And, that is why Trotsky is so popular with the Campus Left, he can be their self-inserted character. Whatever they may wish about Stalin not coming to power, the fact is that in a hypothetical communist state, they think they should be the rulers. Trotsky is popular because he reminds them of themselves.
In many ways they are right. In a communist revolution, the brutes seize power because they know where power comes from, especially during a revolution. The intellectuals are almost always killed. This can be observed in a recent book on Soviet history, The House of the Government by Yuri Slezkine, which tells the story of an apartment building in Moscow that housed the one hundred most radical communist revolutionaries. Within a few short years, all of them were dead, killed by Stalin and his goons because they were considered threats. As I have stated before, the intellectual core of the revolution makes effective shock troops and little else. They are too idealistic and must eventually be delt with. Sooner or later, they will be killed, and because they hate realpolitik and think Hobbes was some sort of mean fascist, they are completely unprepared to deal with someone like Stalin or Al Capone.
A great example of this was during the days of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in Seattle, Washington. In case you do not remember, during the 2020 riots a group of left-wing agitators seized a portion of Seattle and declared it a communist/anarchist collective. What I want to discuss is something that happened in the first few days of the CHAZ. Raz Simone, a local rapper, took over CHAZ and quickly instituted a reign of terror, including rape. This is a great picture of what happens in a communist revolution. Left-wing agitators, Turchin’s failed elites, push for revolution only to be quickly outed by a violent goon, one who may not be well read on political theory, but understands the nature of power far better than they do.
The popularity of Trotsky on the campus is multifaceted. And, much of it comes down to simple wishful thinking. But, there is more than simple wishful thinking going on here, and by understanding what is driving these Trotskyites, the Right can get an important snapshot of the mind of the Campus Left. Trotsky is like them, an intellectual, and as such they see someone they think should be in charge. They think this about themselves, after all. But in doing so, they accidently stumble upon a fundamental truth of revolutionary communism – those who make the revolution do not rule. Left-wing college educated intellectuals make the revolution, that’s why low-paid intellectuals have been so drawn to Marxism. However, that is not who rules post-revolution. That goes to men who understand violence – the Stalins and Capones of the world.
Should the revolution ever come, you won’t be ruled by some blue-haired barista with a degree in gender studies. No, it will be someone like Raz Simone.
I always find it hilarious how many people fall for the idiotic “Stalin was a thug” narrative>
the truth, of course, is very different. Stalin was a refined politician who easily removed all his ideological enemies out of his way by cunning and diplomacy until he was the only choice Lenin had as a successor.
Of course, that is not easy to understand from the West.
You really hit the nail on the head.
One reason idealistic youth idolize Trotsky (I was once one of them!) is because its easy to adhere rigidly to an ideology when you’ve never really had an opportunity to try out the ideas.
To whatever extent “true communism” has ever been tried, it was briefly in the early years of the USSR, prior to Lenin’s New Economic Policy. Disappointed in the results, the Soviet authorities quickly ret-conned their history and called it this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
But this phenomenon is not necessarily bad or confined to the left. Ancestor & saint veneration, especially in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches is basically a similar thing. One’s great or great-great grandparents (who they’ve never met, of course) become an idealized human personification of every virtue they find lacking in themselves and wish to ascribe to. Its why the Greek and Roman “gods” (they were actually Nephilim) were so much like us in their vices and depravity. A more secular-minded person would call it a “bio-hack”