https://discord.gg/ng4CV4

Which means that he DID believen global revolution after all, as fast as possible.

It's one thing to say revolution must be international, but another to make it happen so.

hyeyo cucks]

@Deleted User The thing is that..... it won't, and frankly, never will.

Which is why it hasn't been touched since.

@乙Ƴя𐌆Ξ𝕊_𐌅𐍈𐍂_𐌊Ξ𐌊#0479 Hey alt-rightist.

@Deleted User I have to wonder how the USSR would have turned out if trotsky didn't get banished from the USSR and became leader.

Apparently Trotsky himself told journalists that if he was the leader instead of stalin, it wouldn't be much of a change

Probably would have ended in germany achieving lebenshraum with the allies supporting them....

@gay#2771 That I would doubt.

It wasn't about him losing a power struggle it was about the bureaucracy

Elaborate.

Stalin was too savvy. He lured the Germans *north of the wall*.

?

To suggest a 'what if' like this is asking to suspend disbelief. The better politician won.

True.

You mean the person who had superior manipulation tactics?

Sure.

Realpolitik.

Not that I really care. Everything ends in ruins.

According to historical and dialectical materialism I'm supposed to be invested in the worker class, but I am not. Couldn't care less.

The thing is, revolution is relatively easy. After that small battle you can say any ideology is responsible for your success, even God. And administration is also not very difficult, especially totalitarian kind with is brutish measures. That too can be claimed to be achieved by some special ideology. But really, at what point is the ideology really responsible? It is just all pragmatism up until this point, and not even the best kind,. Where can Marxism say "Here, this was achieve because of our theory". No where.

Where can any one?

Too much of the left is stuck in analysis. The martial ideas are the ones most readily validated.

But even then, who can account for what?

@Deleted User >Revolution
>Adminitstration
>Ideology
>All of these are easy to achieve/understand

They are commonplace.

Unremarkable.

Part of society.

What do you mean by that?

You don't need Marxism to accomplish any of these.

They are staples of human existence.

Nope, I don't see evidence of early humans making bureacracies, ideologies, or political revolutions.

Early humans had plenty of social structures, what?

Many struggles for power and upheavals.

Yep, social structures =/= a buracracy, ideology, or political revolution.

Hell, politicts are not even a THING back then!

Anyway, it's not about early humans, it's about Marxism being redundant in this area.

So it is redundant to human nature then?

That's a loaded word. I was more saying it adds no further insight into practical matters of governance etc.