Interpreting Bolivia: Communism vs Trotskyism

I am reminded today that Trotskyists are the leftists (if they consider themselves leftists) who are the harshest on all other leftists, calling them traitors, secretly serving the masters by repressing the one true representatives of the people: Trotskyists.

And so, one of the better known Trotskyist voices WSWS.org condemns both the coup against Morales (presumably to overcome his intention to only sell finished lithium products) and Morales himself (as someone who serves The Empire by suppressing dissent).

Most leftists, and Communists, see this much more simply.  Morales was one of the best of the best socialist leaders, and virtually everything bad said about him in the western media is false.  

He was undone both because of Lithium and socialist independence, and because tactically he had trusted the goodwill of the military and police (rather than remaking them, as Chavez had done) and US-biased institutions like OAS and US-leaning neighboring states like Chile.  One by one the states of the Bolivarian revolution have been coup'd.  After Bolivia, it's only Venezuela--who has gone to Russia and China for security.  Here's the very straightforward PeoplesWorld version:

Bolivia coup against Morales opens opportunity for multinational mining companies

Bolivia coup against Morales opens opportunity for multinational mining ... C.J. Atkins Lithium is the key ingredient for the batteries fueling the world’s electric car and smartphone revolution. Mark...

Now, at WSWS, while acknowledging the the obvious Western backed Coup, they also call Morales supporters thugs.  It gets very complicated, but in the end, Morales is now only and always has been only a western tool (last paragraph--notice the word continued, so as to say, Morales has always been just a tool):

    (quote) "As demonstrated by its continued subservience to the demands of imperialism and its institutions like the OAS, any future role played by Morales, MAS and their apologists will be aimed at providing a democratic cover to the reality that Bolivian economic and political life are dominated by the US and European financial aristocracies and its military puppets in Bolivia, while there is no section of the Bolivian ruling class capable of fighting imperialism."

So, should be laugh or cry?  The best is to not take Trotskyists very seriously.  There have been Communist revolutions, but no Trotskyist revolution.  No actual revolution or socialism could ever meet Trotskyist standards.  Only a complete and permanent world revolution of all Trotskyists.  That's impossible.  Trotskyists are the concern trolls of the left and have been seen that way by Communists after Lenin (who could deal with him).  Not surprising that in Western mythologies Trotsky and his followers are portrayed far more positively than real existing Communists (an example of: promote the defective strain).  It was telling the way the most original strand of Trotskyists in the USA ultimately morphed into Neocons.

(Technically, Communists have always called Troskyists revisionists.)

Bolivia’s Evo Morales forced out by coup (WSWS report)

Here is a pretty good primer to the differences between Trotskyism and Communism.  The essay may become somewhat revisionist itself when it gets interpreting the last stages of USSR, however.  But it usefully debunks various anti-Communist ideas regarding Lenin and Trotsky.

Taking a look at WSWS, however, I don't see 100% "revisionism."  It's a mixed bag.  In their calls to end internet censorship, they are better than many communists.