The Permanent Revolution Vs. Socialism in One Country

Which or these two men was the legitimate successor to the USSR?
Which of these two men's vision was the correct path to take? Why? Does Socialism in One Country constitute a kind of Nationalism?
Was Stalin justified in his fear (real or otherwise) of a Trotsykist overthrow?
Would you as a ☭TANKIE☭/Trotskyist ever call a Trot/Tankie your comerade?

Attached: images.jpeg (262x192, 5.99K)

I guess it depends upon whether you like the idea of the Red Army invading the rest of Europe and imposing socialism

That happened anyways though…

Brianlet tier.

Trotsky supported fascism.

Care to elabourate instead of posting a brainlet teir two line response?

I was gonna but nah, you can do this little thing called reading yourself.

That's Kalinin not Trotsky in the picture.
No such thing as legitimate successor, the USSR was not a monarchy, nor were the Communist party or the Sovnarkom hereditary institutions.
In my view Trotsky's program was the better one to follow than that on which Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev stood, or the program on which Stalin,Bukharin and Tomsky stood (this should be distinguished from the policies actually pursued under 'stalinism')
I believe that had Trotsky's platform on agriculture and the peasantry been adopted the kulak problem would not have gotten as out of hand as it did and collectivisation would not have to be pursued as an emergency measure in a chaotic fashion. Equally the criticisms on the NEP and the need for planned economy was entirely correct in retrospect.
No it does not, not in itself at least. I don't think you can read Bukharin as see it as an expression of national chauvinism, revisionism, menshevism, right-wing deviationism certainly, but not nationalism, which was strongly suppressed at the time. However on the question of whether 'socialism in one country' was coopted or enabled certain strains of nationalist deviationism is another matter and there were such instances, however it would be unfair and disingenuous to pin those on Bukharin and Stalin, at least at the outset of the theory.
I don't think Stalin had a real fear, I think he was well aware there was no real threat and was not acting out of fear of overthrow as much as fear of instability, criticism without and without the party, anything that would crack the unified edifice of socialist leadership in the face of reactionary encirclement. This certainly led to many terrible decisions and tragic consequences on the individual level, but there was never a genuine threat of a trotskyist coup or terrorism or anything of the sort, they did provide a good scapegoat however and rallied popular support behind the government.
Depends what you mean by ☭TANKIE☭, if its someone who defends the USSR and its policies then i am a ☭TANKIE☭ myself and do get called one regularly. As for whether i would call or consider MLs comrades, i naturally do, i consider them somewhat misguided not just on historical assessments but some key areas of leninism, but on the whole i find far less disagreement on most things with them than with most people. Still i would generally consider anyone from anarchists to jucheists to be comrades. We're all in this together.

Assuming you mean to claim this was Trotsky's position, that couldn't be further from the truth and doesn't bear out in the historical record, it should be noted that when the Poles were being pushed out of the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs, it was Trotsky and Radek who alone voted against the Red Army invading Poland proper, believing it to be both unmanageable and undesirable as the Polish workers were still swept up in the fervour bourgeois independence and invasion would only serve to turn them away from socialism while defeating polish expansionism without seeking invasion of Poland in turn would catalyse revolutionary sentiments among the polish workers.


I'm not even a trot but this is a brainlet understanding of him

not really

History has largely vindicated this strategy I think. The next socialist state must be prepared to wage constant warfare against all capitalist nations and institutions.

Attached: 1548170564815.png (443x534, 184.61K)

Apart from Yugoslavia and maybe Czechoslovakia, none of the eastern bloc states would have had ML governments following WWII if they hadn't had been liberated by the red army.

Permanent revolution was an actual theory, whereas socialism in one country was an ad hoc justification for the purely pragmatic decision to not openly spread revolution to other countries, seeing as the expected revolutionary wave of WW1 fizzled, invading countries to impose socialism upon them was simple imperialism, the world powers were no longer hindered by a massive imperialist carnage and thus could afford to invade the USSR and snuff it out, and the fact that the early USSR wasn't in a position to start military adventures anyway, what with being a semi-feudal, wartorn arctic shithole and all.

Invading other countries and imposing socialism isn't imperialism. Otherwise I agree with your post.

How has history vindicated that strategy? For the entire existence of the Warsaw Pact the countries of Eastern Europe were a thorn in the side of the Soviets, and they only propped up the socialist governments there because they felt it was a matter of natiobal security. Don’t forget that there were three major popular revolts that required Soviet military intervention, and that’s not counting the ones in Poland and Romania that were dealt with without Soviet help. Then of course they all collapsed in 1989 in spectacular fashion, which unlike the collapse of the USSR, was supported by the people in those countries at the time. If anything I think that the Cold War proves that this strategy can never work.

Socialism in One country was practical vs theory that was never implemented anywhere

Attached: Comrade_Stalin_by_Tetrakephaloi.png (800x1075, 227.2K)

What leftypol think of Myasnikov and the workers group?

Attached: myasnikov.jpg (1346x2261, 585.28K)

Incorrect policy platform but not at all one that should've been repressed and treated in the brutalising way it was.

Based and Syndie-pilled. Kollontai did nothing wrong.


Trotsky was extremely irresponsible for talking about overthrowing the Soviet state the way he was. He was an extremely well respected original Bolshevik with lots of inroads into the Red Army, he had no business talking about overthrowing the state while it was besieged on all sides by forces of reaction and imperialism. I like Trotsky but for this alone I think Stalin was justified in running him out of the country and being suspicious. That said, the "Trotskyist plot" and the various purges and show trials of old Bolsheviks like Bukharin were completely unjustified and absurd and as far as I'm concerned defending that shit is where you cross the line from pragmatic Marxist-Leninist to Stalinaboo. His indiscriminate destruction of the Bolsheviks coupled with Lenin's thoughts about not trusting Stalin to be in too high a position of authority in the Party is quite an indictment imo, and too often dismissed as just another obnoxious Trot claim (of which there are plenty, this is not one). I have a lot of admiration for Stalin in his defense against fascism and general capability as an administrator, and especially for his life before being General Secretary, but not believing bourgeois propaganda about him doesn't mean we should unconditionally defend him.

As for "socialism in one country" I dont think there was realistically another way to go about it. And I don't think this constitutes any kind of reactionary nationalism – the USSR was made up of dozens of nations that to various degrees enjoyed autonomy and preservation. There are certain circumstances like the landing of nomads and the forced resettling of Siberian tribes that are objectionable, but basically I dont think there is a contradiction between internationalism and pragmatically building a socialist society within a set of borders de facto maintained by imperialism whether you like it or not. Cuba has done incredibly well for itself under those conditions, all things considered. Some say the DPRK has also done well in that sense but I don't know enough to comment. Tho I think socialism in one country was a good policy I do also think the USSR fucked up a lot of chances at internationalism. There is absolutely no reason that Yugoslavia and China should not have been supported as full allies. Stalin's realpolitik extended to reactionary states besieged by imperialism, but not to socialist ones? I don't understand it. A closely allied USSR and China could have been what ushered in a new century of socialist revolutions.

It's strange to me that people consider Trotsky less of a "tankie", he was a Red Army commander that oversaw the destruction of anarchists in Krondstat and Ukraine and breaking up of strikes, and advocated for the immediate collectivization of kulak land way before Stalin warmed to the idea, which he initially considered too extreme. I know the incident with Hungary is what led to the ☭TANKIE☭ label but afaik now it just refers to these sort of strong-armed "state-socialist" tactics of which Trotsky was absolutely a part.

None, it was Bukharin

Despite my shitposting, I don't have an issue with most Trotkyists IRL (except for the super sectarian ones). I like Marcyites especially, since they are typically just as anti-imperialist as classic MLs. The Stalin vs. Trotsky debate isn't really all that relevant in the 21st century. It's more of a historical disagreement rather than a disagreement about theory or praxis. A socialist revolution and state in the 21st century would be facing totally new kinds of circumstances.

Most of the ideological disagreements between Trotskyists and ☭TANKIE☭s would be made irrelevant in a 21st century revolution (e.g. the "bloated bureaucracy" would be replaced by an AI central planning program).

um yeah…so? of course it was never implemented elsewhere because the USSR had stalin not trotsky and china sperged out after mao

not a good argument imo

Well, your questions are inherently flawed, as there is no "legitimate successor" to a workers' state. It's not some kind of monarchy where you can inherit leadership.

I think that history has proven Trotsky correct, socialism could not progress under stalin's 2-stage theory or the theory of socialism in one state, although it is impressive that the USSR existed for as long as it did.

I'm one of the trots who considers Cuba a legitimate workers state, neither degenerate nor deformed, and Castro's program of aiding the Angolans nnd providing support in Latin America is clearly influenced by Trotsky's permanent revolution. Incidentally, this May an international conference on Trotskyism is being hosted in Havana with the support/funding of the Cuban government, so they clearly see the importance of a global effort now more than ever.

Yes, I will work with MLs, despite that most ML parties focus on persuading the Democrats or even openly support them (CPUSA, FRSO) They are usually easier to organize with than Anarchists who may go off-program, at least MLs keep their word when a program is agreed on for protest/march/etc.
Not too interested in the Juchers online whose one goal is talking about how paradisaical the DPRK is. Like, get over it, North Korea is basically irrelevant on the world stage.

This board has changed a lot over the years. I remember when I first came here, back in 2015 or so, and any mention of Trotsky would just result in a bunch of icepick spam.