I keep read this term (trot) here used as a slur, so I looked it up. Seems Trotskyism was very specific to Russia at a very specific time (as a means to gain true socialism), and wouldn't work in a society where capitalism was very strong. Apart from that, concepts relating to revolution would be more sensibly applied to the goal being anarchism, which is my position, and the means of revolution being more in line with such as pilger (complete civil disobedience). Being dismissed for disagreement with a term that simply doesn't apply is an excellent way to shut down debate, but it doesn't do much for the advance of social justice and change.
Is the term being used correctly, or is it just a reaction to the idea that to get somewhere positive we have to act collectively? If we can do that to vote in a farcical system perhaps we could do it to achieve more? Maybe the goal then isn't to get real change for the poor but to prevent change that might negatively affect those higher up the economic ladder?
This all comes down to Keith's position, I think. not voting is one method of civil disobedience, and interestingly rhisiarts not paying taxes is another. Both are in fact on the same path, but rhisiart denies it on one hand and supports it on another. Without the state led division, universal support for such an idea might be possible. It seems yet again the state wins though, because these days we are all divided. And individuals who revolt are duly punished. Only when all or most people do it at the same time do we open the path to real and positive change. Think the difference between the 1916 Irish uprising and the actual taking back of the state 10 years later. The first wave were either gunned down or executed. It took mass support to get Ireland back into Irish hands.
As we stand, were simply looking for crumbs from the masters' table and being told to get back on our knees if we suggest standing up and eating from a plate.
Anyway, I think Trotskyist is the wrong definition for that, and even if it's not then it appears it's a finely crafted example of the same old , wealth telling poverty what's good for it.