WI: Trotsky and the Left Opposition rehabilitated post-Stalin?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Khrushchev, or whoever ends up replacing Stalin, decides to rehabilitate Trotsky and the Left Opposition, what would the long term effects of this decision be?

How would this affect dissident groups in the Soviet Union? If Trotsky is rehabilitated, then at least some of his works would be likely to avoid the censors. Could this mean that there is a Trotskyist anti-bureaucratic element in future reforms, as well as more radical dissidents? Furthermore, without the spectre of "Trotskyism" would other dissidents be able to get away with pushing for more with less risk of repression?

How would this affect relations between the 3rd and 4th Internationals and the various parties within? Would there be greater cooperation between Soviet-alined and Trotskyist Communists, or would the division between them prevent any more cooperation than IOTL? Would Trotskyists view the move towards rehabilitation as a sign that the Soviet Union was moving in the right direction, or would they see it as mere window dressing?
 
Every rehabilitation of Trotsky will bring up the problem of opposition inside and outside the party, since Trotsky's late work (like The Revolution Betrayed) stressed the importance of left-wing parties alongside the traditional communist party.* So every Soviet government allowing its citizen to read and discuss Trotsky will have or to choose the Glasnot option or to be overthrwon by a more or less peaceful revolution.

Now it's up to how clever Khrushchev or whoever decides to make such a step is: if he is able to use Trotsky against the party burocracy, he could survive such a move, but if he is too direct he will be overthrown by the party wanting to prevent the Glasnost and reform.

* Fun fact: Trotsky, hile he was member of the Soviet government, did everything to crack down on such an opposition.
 
* Fun fact: Trotsky, hile he was member of the Soviet government, did everything to crack down on such an opposition.
In general it'd be something to note that Trotsky advocated cracking down on opposition movements whilst in the midst of a Civil War and after the Civil War had been won argued for a gradual and careful return to a more open government as it was in the very early stages of the Russian Revolution with the soviets being openly elected bodies representing the working class. I mean, he was already arguing against bureaucratisation and advocating for an opening up of the party structures to more peasant workers and proletarians instead of leaving the functionaries in power in The New Course in 1923 where he wrote "It is plain that the heterogeneity of the party’s social composition, far from weakening the negative sides of the old course, aggravates them in the extreme. There is not and cannot be any other means of triumphing over the corporatism, the caste spirit of the functionaries, than by the realization of democracy". He wasn't perfect by any means but he advocated harsh measures during harsh times and reconciliation in the peace that was growing afterwards.

The main reason the USSR never rehabilitated Trotsky was because he openly and often criticised the bureaucracy that rose to power and opening that sort of thought up to the average person under the thumb of Stalinism would basically be tacit approval of dissent.
 
Everyone had too much invested in the witch hunt for Trotskyists too early on. Rehabilitating Trotsky shifts the blame for excesses from Stalin and his inner circle to most of the party leadership.

Rehabilitation served the purpose of cementing Khrushchev and his own cronies in power. Rehabilitating Trotsky would have the opposite effect.

He has no reason to, but if he did he risks either more radical demands for reform or a Stalinist backlash.
 
Top