I've started thinking properly about my next PD game - Central Committee! - and would like some thoughts about it from people who know trotskyite parties better than me...
The game is a set collection game, played with cards. The cards will each have a party member on them, and the aim will be to get together the winning slate for election to the central committee. I need to work out the mechanisms that will allow people to change their cards but I want to play on the splitting thing of course so I'm going to try to get people to effectively trade cards in some way by joining and then splitting.
I could really use some help with the theming though.
I'm thinking the cards will have stats - a type of person (academic, young pretender, retired activist, I really don't know what the stereotypes should be) and various identity markers (gender, race, sexuality, I don't know what else or if I have those three and then on some/all have one or two other identity features like visible disability, pfwc or perhaps other kinds of perceived bonuses).
So thoughts please on the stereotypes you expect to find on the platonic ideal of a trotskyite central committee.
Also is there any kind of general number for how many people sit on a central committee? This'll have to be governed by the nature of set collection games ultimately, which I think is probably something like 5-7 to collect, but if there's a usual (or even better ideologically/historically defined) number of people it would be good to match that.
seventh bullett is right that Trotskyists never, ever, say Trotskyite! That's the Stalinist term. Even "Trotskyist" was only grudgingly adopted, as early Trotskyists didn't accept that there was any difference between Trotskyism and Bolshevism.
On Central Committees:
1) Many, probably most, Trotskyist parties don't have a body called that, but most have a body that more or less has the same role.
2) The Central Committee, or nearest equivalent, is not the top leadership body. It is, as in the Communist Parties, a large body including both the core leaders and a wider range of second tier leaders. The British SWP is very unusual in calling its actual top leadership body the "Central Committee". A subset of that body, called the Politburo in Communist Party tradition and in a handful of Trotskyist parties, but more usually called the something like the Executive Committee is the smaller top leadership body.
So in, say the English and Welsh Socialist Party, the National Committee (Central Committee equivalent) has maybe fortyish members. A subset of about a dozen of them form the Executive Committee. This would be more or less the kind of arrangement you'd see in most of the larger Trotskyist groups around the world (say those of more than 1,000 members), but there's no guarantee that any given group will fit that mold and even if it does fit, the names of the committees vary a lot. The Central Committee equivalent in the Nouveau Parti Anti-Capitaliste is called something like the National Political Bureau, for instance. Very small groups might just have a single small leadership committee, more akin to the type of setup you are thinking of. The SWP is, I think, the only relatively large Trotskyist group with that single small committee leadership structure.
Basically, I think you'll have to ignore authenticity a bit if you want to use the more resonant name "Central Committee" and have it be both manageably small and the actual top leadership. Or just pretend that the British SWP is more representative than it is.