I’m a Third Campist.
That means, during the official Cold War, I would have opposed both the USA and USSR.
Now, it means I oppose both the USA and China.
It also means I don’t really see NATO or Russia as the good guys. Maybe Russia is honestly worse, but in reality I seek the radical transformation of both NATO and Russia, probably requiring the overthrow of all involved governments.
There’s this other ideology, from which Third Campism emerged, called Trotskyism.
Trotsky was part of the Russian Revolution. When the USSR started going sideways and undemocratic, he criticized it from within, then was exiled, then was assassinated.
He certainly engaged in the same undemocratic practices as the rest of the Party, including banning factions, suppressing the Constituent Assembly, and excluding other socialists. He was really forced to become a democracy oppositionist simply because he was losing the factional struggle, but that’s what he became.
The problem with Trotsky is he never fully let go of the USSR. I guess I understand; he helped build it.
But this places Trotskyism is an uncomfortable halfway position, between Third Campism which fully rejects the USSR, and Stalinism which fully embraces it.
Trotskyism almost half-embraces it, defending the USSR itself but calling for an internal rebellion.
That’s the rub: how can you defend something while calling for an internal rebellion?
If an internal rebellion is needed, it means the entity itself has gone to shit.
Trotsky could never square this.
So I guess I’m saying, Trotskyism is a halfway between Third Campism and Stalinism, whereas I personally don’t really want there to be a halfway.
Would be better to escape the paradox.
It’s disputed, but a lot of Trotskyists say that Third Campism is not a legitimate part of Trotskyism.
That used to annoy me, but now I see their point.
I don’t want to be part of Trotskyism, because Trotskyism is just the least-evil subcategory of Leninism.
I’d rather be a different thing.
Why go only halfway?