I think its good that Stalin stopped in Berlin
I also believe permanent revolution is better than socialism in one country
Trotposting
permanent revolution does sound cool though … you gotta admit
“Let’s face industrialized empires 100 years of development ahead of us” isn’t as cool as it sounds
1: That’s not what it means
2: The closest it ever gets to meaning that is equally applicable to the other position.
The question is “Can we trust capitalists to uphold their end of the deal” and Trotsky said no and Stalin said yes.
And hey, turns out, you can get in a position where they will let you sell them stuff, so kudos to Stalin. But also the soviet union still had to become the world’s largest/second largest military to stop nato from destroying them, and they still did it
Historically, it is what it means.
A steady rise of socialist economy in Russia will not be possible until after the victory of the proletariat in the leading countries of Europe.
Trotsky, (“Collected Works,” Vol. 3, Part I, Pgs.92-93.)
He was proven incredibly wrong by socialism in one country, which managed to defend itself from Nazism after the most rapid industrialization to that point of human history, and expanded the revolution all the way westwards to Berlin.
The question is “Can we trust capitalists to uphold their end of the deal”
That’s not the question, the question is “can the revolution survive without the support of the working classes of imperialist western countries”, and the debate was settled when the USSR won WW2 and saved those very working classes from their own fascism.
But also the soviet union still had to become the world’s largest/second largest military
And they managed to do so, so what’s the point?
Historically, it is what it means
No, it isnt. Its the question of whether a Socialist country can and should try to survive as a singular expression of socialism, and trade and engage in diplomacy with capitalists powers and let them do their capitalism while you do socialism.
Neither side of the question advocated for war with the west.
Trotsky was willing to throw away half the union to avoid war, stalin engaged honestly with every treacherous liar in the west.And they managed to do so, so what’s the point?
That socialism in one country still necessitated preparing to fight the entire world with all its advantages.
Neither side of the question advocated for war with the west
But “trading, engaging in diplomacy and letting them do their capitalism” is explicitly a tool to prevent war and invasion coming from the west in the case of the USSR. If the early USSR (when the permanent revolution debate took place after Lenin’s death and the practical end of the New Economic Policy) had actually engaged in antagonizing the capitalists in the west, it would simply have been crushed before it had time to industrialize.
With AI generated corporate figures in the US model industry, and probably are already a combination of factions within tech manufacturing constraints. The MIC always wants to, Palantir, despite the divisions and nations of real importance, need to do research, etc, which is probably sort of a perch, at the end of the current tech development network in its core capabilities.
Even at some point yale’s analysis will never allow it to be sold. They’ll easily reduce the amount of advancements of input you’re a fed and actually holding into companies that, instead of operating it, and the people with resources in control, and when you’re able to automate all of the company.
get them bugs and turn, stop., - this is very mobilize/ga- net, let
I also believe permanent revolution is better than socialism in one country
But socialism in one country is the conservative position there.
Sir. This is a badpost
What is wrong with Trotskyism?
I feel like this is a trap for trots like me
I don’t have any strong feelings on trots. Like I take you guys over libs 7 days a week
*i’m
your
welcome to badposting
