I just want to confirm that you are not saying it is not a "real" word, yes?

Trotsky must have been speaking in Russian, or he would not have been understood. The words he was using would have been Russian, and come out of Russian cultural as languages are born out of cultures and reflect their cultures. The translation of that word into English then is also going to carry with it assumptions made by the translator, if Trotsky's word is the birth of the word. But Richard Henry Pratt may have coined "racism" long before that. Regardless of who first coined the word, it is just a mechanical process applied to any word, in this case the word being: race. It seems to me the origin of the word is not really knowable or meaningful, because of the nature of the English langage: once a word exists, the variations of it all also exist. Run was not born separate from running or ran. Racism and racist are right there along with the word race from day one, used or not.

But, my use of the word, was simply because "religious bigotry" is cumbersome. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the point I'm making and it was just speculation about the dude "hector died of aids" motivations and goals in posting-- which he has no issue with even if he thinks the word is not a real word.

If Trotsky and Bolsheviks were really trying to usher in a socialism of any kind is very debatable. The debate has roots going back long before the Russian revolution. I think it was Rudolph Rocker who pointed out the incongruities between previous goals and ideas of socialists and the Bolsheviks placing the Party above and separate from the actual population-- as if the party were some non-human entity above the people, and the people running the party then above that. Rocker also details the fact that the Soviet economy was a state-run capitalism, where the "soviets", workers, were shut out of decision making and had no control over the means of production. The idea that you can be socialist but deny the worker control over their own production is laughable. They did this though through violence and totalitarianism, most clearly in what they did to the Makhnovshchina and to Ukrainian farmers who should have had at least some sovereignty over their labor if they were really socialist. (very easy listens of Rocker's works are easily found at Audible Anarchist's youtube page. His "Anarcho-syndicalism: theory and practice" has a good summary of these ideas, and his "Nationalism and Culture" is much longer and more detailed.)

Obsessing over the Jewishness of some people who abuse power seems to give a free pass to their peers who are not Jewish, and I think misses the point and misses what people should be organizing against. Does it matter what religion someone is, or what they are doing to people? George Soros is no more of a bastard than JD Rockefeller or the Koch brothers because of his religion. The damage he does is not made greater by his religion than the damage done by the Bushes or Obama or the Clintons.