Trotsky did legitimately have good points the permanent revolution thing is the main flaw in his thinking beyond that he's pretty good. He went into personal beef later in life but he put out some solid theory
What's funny is that the USSR and her allies actually did participate in permanent revolution. Trotsky's theory was carried out by the very people who assassinated him for being a whiney annoying bitch lol.
Also so many natsec ghouls are trotskyists, but because the believe in permanent counter-revolution which is basically what the US did in South and Central America and Asia.
Yeah but Trotsky being dead isn't really in charge of what Trotskyists do and say. Also Trotsky's fall was that of a legitimate hero of the revolution into a bitter loser of a political rival. Show some respect if only for the man he was at one point
I said his permanent revolution was good and it was right to do it, he was also a big crybaby who tried to form a rightist bloc to take back power from Stalin. He felt he deserved the position because he was a hero and that should have immediately disqualified him.
I said his permanent revolution was good and it was right to do it
Questionable. Why think that when it clearly failed? We must learn from past mistakes and adjust in future experiments or we'll fail too.
In my opinion their desire to help revolutions worldwide was a major factor in what brought them down. They should have developed first, become the hegemon and then launched such support. Hindsight is 20/20 of course though.
With that said it may still not have prevented a slime like Yeltsin getting in charge and betraying them. Everything was flawed from the moment Kruschev lied.
Yeah, permanent revolution is a questionable thing, but it makes sense and was a tactic adopted by the people who ousted Trotsky. I think China's strategy so far has been pretty good, support the successful revolutions against counter revolution instead of instigating revolution.
Which is wild because the Sino-Soviet split was over this and China was arguing for more direct intervention while the Soviets were arguing against direct intervention and they ended up doing the opposite.
I just made that up honestly, it works to describe the sort of vile internationalism that neocons have. They are happy to use the imperial state as a tool to suppress the movements they see as wrong.
I don't think they're trotskyists at that point though, they just apply that idea to how they approach revolution in other nations.
:trot-shining:
:max-eastman:
The fact that they promote Trotsky and make the shows (Netflix?) about him is just playing up anticommunist propaganda.
Any time a communist is mentioned in any show and isn't a comically evil person, they're a Trot.
Trotsky did legitimately have good points the permanent revolution thing is the main flaw in his thinking beyond that he's pretty good. He went into personal beef later in life but he put out some solid theory
What's funny is that the USSR and her allies actually did participate in permanent revolution. Trotsky's theory was carried out by the very people who assassinated him for being a whiney annoying bitch lol.
Also so many natsec ghouls are trotskyists, but because the believe in permanent counter-revolution which is basically what the US did in South and Central America and Asia.
Yeah but Trotsky being dead isn't really in charge of what Trotskyists do and say. Also Trotsky's fall was that of a legitimate hero of the revolution into a bitter loser of a political rival. Show some respect if only for the man he was at one point
I said his permanent revolution was good and it was right to do it, he was also a big crybaby who tried to form a rightist bloc to take back power from Stalin. He felt he deserved the position because he was a hero and that should have immediately disqualified him.
Questionable. Why think that when it clearly failed? We must learn from past mistakes and adjust in future experiments or we'll fail too.
In my opinion their desire to help revolutions worldwide was a major factor in what brought them down. They should have developed first, become the hegemon and then launched such support. Hindsight is 20/20 of course though.
With that said it may still not have prevented a slime like Yeltsin getting in charge and betraying them. Everything was flawed from the moment Kruschev lied.
Yeah, permanent revolution is a questionable thing, but it makes sense and was a tactic adopted by the people who ousted Trotsky. I think China's strategy so far has been pretty good, support the successful revolutions against counter revolution instead of instigating revolution.
Which is wild because the Sino-Soviet split was over this and China was arguing for more direct intervention while the Soviets were arguing against direct intervention and they ended up doing the opposite.
:this:
Permanent counter revolution? I've heard of a trot neocon pipeline but I never understood it, could you shed some light?
I just made that up honestly, it works to describe the sort of vile internationalism that neocons have. They are happy to use the imperial state as a tool to suppress the movements they see as wrong.
I don't think they're trotskyists at that point though, they just apply that idea to how they approach revolution in other nations.
So not a communist then? Got it.
Only write newspaper, no revolution. Permanent revolution meant printing zines and doing ketamine.
That’s entryism