Neither was stalin

That's not how it worked

@gay#2771 Except he kind of did, he publically stated many times that he wanted the revolution to spread globally as fast as possible and did so by funding socialist uprisings in places like germany.

They weren't heirs to a throne

@Deleted User We will see about that.

Indeed.

Permanent revolution isn't belief in an instant global revolution

Nobody realistically believes that will happen

Maybe posadists, after the massive nuclear holocaust of course

@gay#2771 No, he very much believed that the revoultion would be global.

Why would he advocate for such internationalism if he DIDN'T want a global revolution?

The debate moved on over time, at first permanent revolution was in contrast to the menshevik two-stage theory

....And?

Trotsky theorized that the bourgeois of semi-feudal countries such as russia were unable to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, therefore the proletariat and peasantry would lead an alliance and carry out the tasks but carry it further as a socialist revolution, which was proven correct in 1917

So the debate moved on to Trotsky also theorizing that an isolated revolution would be unable to survive against the capitalist world, especially when it's backwards, so revolution must take place in other countries quickly aswell

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?