Talk about the work. So, our tendencies formed in opposition to each other. So when we interact there are subtle differences about the way we frame the exact same questions that we are conditioned to be sort of repulsed. Like, why does quoting Trotsky make you cringe? He was a great writer, theorist and leader of two worker revolutions. Why does his mere mention give you the ick? Maybe you should examine that.

But theres stuff about ml politics that are gonna get under his skin. He doesn’t like bureaucracy (which is what he means when he says parties are “Stalinist”), he doesnt like socialism in one country (why are MLs anti internationalist anyway), he doesn’t like popular fronts. Maybe ask him questions to get a better understanding, ask questions, and then pose questions in a way to make him think about the answers, so that maybe he can see your point of view.

Being a trotskyist does not make him conservative. Shelve your biases and try to learn and teach. Base conversations in actual practical work and out of the abstract world trots and MLs developed contrary to each other. Usually we are all coming up against the same problems but have different tactics and strategies within our traditions. But literally all of that melts away when you get into practical work. Don’t fall into sectarian traps just vibe. Share organizing stories, and frustrations. Get out of these old fights between dead men. " the traditions of a thousand dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the minds of the living"

Just don’t pick on him, maybe axk him some nice questions to break the ice.

I love him and I’m incredibly proud of him. He’s super smart and he’s doing a lot of great work in his org.

There’s a lot of admiration there for your brother and I promise I don’t mean to be insulting to anyone, but are you sure he actually develops his own conclusions or is he just parroting a lot of big words from people he finds important? If you learn more yourself you’ll be able to judge better. You’re plenty capable.

You don’t need to argue with your brother about politics if it makes you feel bad or damages your relationship that you cherish. Let him quote Trotsky all he wants, it isn’t really gonna do much harm honestly (won’t do much good either but we all can have our fixations eh?) . Just focus on learning stuff you care about for yourself.

Also the kind of neat or depressing things, depending on how you look at is, is that everything is political! So you can just study and learn how to apply Marxist principles in practice, without explicitly announcing it.

and he’s sort of a tailist about being anti-parties, pro mass movements (even though he is in a party, but he wants parties to support councils and hand over power to them after revolution, I’m not sure I understand correctly).

The man was the commander in chief of the Red Army. A lot of people seems to consider themselves Trotskyists, but have opinions that Trotsky himself would probably have dismissed (anti-party???).

you are arguing over something rather immaterial no? character of china or russia or ussr doesn’t bear on your actions until you are state department ghoul, so just do good things together

Call him a revisionist and a huge nerd. Repeat as necessary

he wants parties to support councils and hand over power to them after revolution

That is just going to create a bourgeois republic? If there are not enough educated communists in the population to fill all of these councils, the uneducated proles will support multi-party democracy and allowing the bourgeoisie to have their own party. The result of this will be that the bourgeoisie get back in control.

Opposition to “stalinist parties” (as if any party defined itself as stalinist) is really important to him, same with bureaucracy and I’m not even sure what that even means.

To what policy in particular? If he doesn’t have a particular policy that he is opposed to but just a generalised “they don’t denounce stalin as a monster, they look at him maturely and academically!” then this is just the same behaviour as the radlibs display to communists (including trots) as all being “red fash”.

He’s says he’s anti-imperialist (about NATO, Palestine, etc.), but doesn’t want to hear any good word about China or the Soviet-Union.

I don’t get this. Most of the trot orgs in europe are pro-China internally now, though maybe not completely vocal about it externally everyone can see they’re doing something good and quite different to the bourgeois democracies. The trots across europe aren’t against the USSR too, they’re only really mad at Stalin.

And he thinks Russia is at least as much to blame for the war in Ukraine as the US, or more cause “they send troops first and have the same imperialist interests”. I disagree… (he’s still against the military buildup in the EU though).

I don’t think this matters to argue with him. There’s almost nothing to gain from it. A better angle to take with him on this is pointing out that the anti-imperialist countries he does support are all reliant on russia, and that any revolution will immediately become the enemy of nato and thus will also have to rely on supplies, trade and support from Russia and China. In fact, highlighting this reality has been my single number 1 best method of getting people to realise who their enemy is and who their allies are. A new country post-revolution can not succeed without trade and support from Russia and China and this reality highlights their importance to anti-imperialism. You need to get bullets and missiles from somewhere and it isn’t going to be from the west. If China and Russia aren’t important to anti-imperialism why then are they the most important partners of every anti-imperialist country?

Get Socratic with this. Ask what happens when a small country in Europe has a revolution. Ask what their immediate problems are. Ask what their immediate needs are. Ask who their new enemies are. Ask where they’ll get their bullets and missiles to defend against these new enemies. Etc etc. Most people accidentally come to the realisation that Russia and China are essential to a new revolution if you use this Socratic questioning path.

He thinks China is “state-capitalist” and every bit as imperialist as the US, because they export capital (with this, he refers to Lenins definition of imperialism, though he dosn’t like the terms “finance capital” or “monopoly capital”) and do “land grabbing” in Africa. To me, it’s plain ridiculous to compare that to the US empire, but I guess he’s talking about what he thinks China might become in the future?

Ok but where is the subjugation? Where is the force? Where are the millions of dead in africa and the global south as a result of enforcing their debts or doing regime change to put their companies in charge of local resources?

Total nonsense. You can’t say total nonsense without straining the relationship though.

To me, it’s plain ridiculous to compare that to the US empire, but I guess he’s talking about what he thinks China might become in the future?

No, people who say this usually think that China is like the US empire now, because they typically have incoherent state department sourced ideas of what China is doing in Africa. Ask him for specific examples, and then you’ll be able to find articles discussing and debunking them. Or, more likely, he won’t be able to give you specific examples.

China obviously isn’t perfect (especially, historically, on foreign policy), but the comparison with the US is offensively incorrect.

does he try to sell you newspapers?

If there’s something he says that you don’t have a good response to, why are you hesitant to just agree with him for now and change your mind later if you do see evidence/better reasoning when you read theory or talk with other MLs? And for everything else, if he doesn’t want to look at things from your perspective to understand you, I think you can either ask him to give you the same grace you give him, or try to keep your conversation to the subjects you share ground in.

He thinks China is “state-capitalist”

And he thinks Russia is at least as much to blame for the war in Ukraine as the US,

Do you have good responses for this?

I think refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments of China is a silly idealist affectation. I think they’re a revisionist bureaucracy too, but that doesn’t change that they have achieved a tremendous amount and we should be combating state department lies about them as they continue to achieve more (also duly criticize wrongdoings).

Your main concern should not be running to your internet ML friends to get words to say to justify inherited opinions, it should be developing a good epistemology and a healthy outlook and method therewith so that even if, for example, you are convinced by the trot and it also happens to be that he is wrong, you can dig the both of you out of the hole as new information contradicts previous assumptions. He will also care a lot more about what you have to say if you approach this from a genuine, open-minded but critical standpoint rather than act like a Christian apologetics-style dogmatist.

(with this, he refers to Lenins definition of imperialism, though he dosn’t like the terms “finance capital” or “monopoly capital”)

??? So he refers to Lenin’s definition, but doesn’t like it? Why refer to it, then?

Just call him a nerd