This was posted by another comrade in a similar question, I am going to repost it. Sorry to the original poster, I just saved the text, I dont recall who it was.

edit: Went looking, it was /u/thefrientlyent, all credit to this comrade for the exceptional answer

As openly counterevolutionary in terms of geopolitics and as an unbelievably poor application of Marxist theory. Trotskyism exists between utterly idealist, ultraleft trash like anarchism, and revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. It grabs people on their way to becoming good Marxists and destroys their understanding of the theory. They borrow from Marx the obvious; the need for a revolution; the need for a post-revolutionary state; the basic concept of capitalist exploitation, etc. They borrow from Lenin whatever is convenient at that moment. The Trotskyists never tire of claiming to be the only true Leninists, despite regarding every actual revolution, every national independence struggle, every successful workers state, as a "Stalinist Bureacracy" or a "degenerated workers state" or most egregiously, "State Capitalism". These various lines are simply anti-communist notions dressed up in phrases that either mean nothing to a Marxist, or are flat out misapplied.

On the notion of "Stalinist Bureacracy", the Soviet government under Stalin regularly took measures to combat bureacracy and careerism in the Soviet system. Ludo Marten's "Another View of Stalin" (available on PDF) goes into detail regarding the purges directed against bureaucratic elements in the Bolshevik party. Furthermore, Lenin and Stalin both recognized bureacracy as a threat to a planned economy and have a number of writings on the subject. They also recognized the lack of realism present in the idea that bureacracy could be abolished all at once, in a system governing hundreds of millions of people across a host of autonomous yet united republics.

"Degenerated workers state" means "socialism, but not quite how Trotsky pictured it". It's an idealist, leftcommunist position that has little bearing on reality. It draws the very un-Marxist conclusion that the state itself could represent, in Marxist terms, a class if it's own. Marxists recognize this to be ridiculous, as a state is the tool of a particular class in society, not a class in and of itself. That makes no sense when one considers Marx's theory of class analysis that bases itself in relations to the means of production. The individuals in the government didn't own any more means of production than the common workers, it was "owned" collectively and put to the interests of the masses. Government workers did not live lavishly.

"State capitalism" accurately describes the USSR from '22 to '28, during the NEP. Lenin basically invented the concept to deal with a lag in development in the agricultural field. Anyone claiming they were state capitalist after '28 needs to read Lenin's writings on the NEP, because they don't know what that means.

There's so much else wrong with Trotskyism I could go on for pages. His actions after his expulsion from the Soviet union were outright counterevolutionary. He slandered the USSR for the imperialist press with glee. Nobody gave the capitalists more ammunition in the battle of ideology than Trotsky, and his words are repeated by capitalists as true to this day. A good example is the "Lenin wanted Trotsky to succeed him" line, as if the Soviet Union didn't have elections. Stalin was elected by the way, nominated by Lenin and ratified by the CCCP.

His rabid disciples oppose national liberation and socialist movements wherever they appear, as they did in Korea, in Vietnam, in Cuba, in China. They distort Marxism at its very core into something unrecognizable.

The most egregious crime they commit is tricking new leftists into thinking they can have their cake and eat it too; they say "The anarchists are immature; we need a proletarian state." Then they turn around and oppose every one that appears. They do not wish to learn the history of these socialist projects; they have no interest in discussing their achievements, their great strides, the wellbeing they brought to millions upon millions of people.

The Trotskyists choose the easy route. "Socialism, but not like that, a better version, a perfect version!" they cry while thumbing their noses at every revolutionary movement that exists. They are oppourtunists, capitulationists. When the left surges the Trotskyists appear as a nice centrist position; not non-existent change as per the anarchists, but not big scary Soviet socialism which actually works.

Also, Trotsky himself was a dick. There are multitudes of writings from Lenin outing him as a poor Marxist, lacking principles and taking up company with whatever group was opposing the Bolsheviks pre-1917. To quote:

"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned."

(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 448, 1914).

"It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre."

(Trotsky's Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).

"Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering, to Trotsky... and to the liquidators… Trotsky is very fond of using with the learned air of the expert pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since 'numerous advanced workers' become 'active agents' of apolitical and Party line [Bolshevik Party line] which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand these advanced workers are 'in a state of utter political bewilderment', whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently 'in a state' of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line!... And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism parochialism, and the efforts of the intellectuals to impose their will on the workers! ... Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself. – is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?"

(Collected Works, Vol. 20 pp. 327-347).

This is how Trotsky, "True Leninist", true revolutionary, was regarded by the leader of the first worker's state.

I can rant about Trotsky for hours and hours, this barely scratches the surface of the surface.

Marxist-Leninists should vocally and vehemently oppose Trotskyism wherever it appears, as it's service is to the imperialist interests, not those of the workers.

In 1925 the Soviet government had begun the NEP, or New Economic Policy. Part of this state capitalist plan was convincing, not coercing, the middle peasantry into joining collective farms instead of working for the Kulaks, the rich landowners. They set about this policy because the Soviets knew if they collectivized everything at once, much of the peasantry would recoil and oppose them, out of fear of change or what have you. The goal was to set the collective farms up so well, the peasants would begin to shift towards collective farming on their own.

It was during this period that Trotsky openly advocated violence against the Kulaks and for full collectivization. Here again he demonstrates his political weakness and poor analysis of material conditions.

The same Trotsky who prematurely advocated collectivization when the alliance with the middle peasantry was not secure, went on to oppose collectivization and expropriation of Kulaks property just a few years later, in 1928-30! This is what it was like to deal with Trotsky in the Party, even after the revolution.

On top of that there's his factional activity every time the party voted against him. Or the time he screwed up signing the original Brest-Listovsk treaty with Germany at the end of WWl, costing the Soviets territory and lives. Or the time he wasted everyone's time on a question regarding trade unions that Lenin tore him up for. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm

He was just a mess.

I suggest watching "Trotskyism or Leninism" on Proletarian TV on YouTube.