To be fair, in the comments are some sources that made me go :bruh:

https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/p75ca8/context_unncessary/

Edit: I did find a “tankie” that says “prolonging the civil war + US occupation would be worse than a Taliban peace”, also coupmed with "the immediate fall of the Afghan military is proof that the Taliban are more legitimate rulers than the US puppet government". See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1i0ipzS754

          • RandomAccessKhemri [none/use name]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Ok, I let my drunk assholeness type some mean things. I apologize for that. I don’t in all truth think he was a moron. I simply am a person who is of the opinion that he was out of touch with the level of awareness possessed by the global proletariat at that time.

          • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            I can honestly look at the theory of Permanent Revolution, say exactly and precisely why I disagree with it

            I mean, isn't the NEP, to an extent, the implementation of Permanent Revolution in practice?

              • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
                ·
                3 years ago

                My understanding (as presented by Mike Duncan in Revolutions) is that the position of Permanent Revolution, at least as it was initially conceived, was that the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak to have the bourgeois revolution it needed to have, and that socialists should take over Russia and manage it through a period of capitalism so that socialism could be achieved.

        • PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          With the distance of time (and the Soviet Union no longer existing), we can admire the contributions that Trotsky made to the revolution, while condemning his later turn.

      • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The anarchists (if they studied the subject) would note that none of Trotsky's objections to Stalinism had to do with the degree of state repression and Trotsky's common position on repressive actions was "I'd have done that, but better". If they were cogent enough about USSR history to understand why it mattered, they'd note that Trotsky was just as much in agreement with Lenin as Stalin on the subject of the Worker's Opposition and that the roots of Stalinism were not on the silly debate over Socialism in One Country or Amorphous Posturing Internationalism, but in the rejection of the program of the Worker's Opposition. If "tankie" meant anything anymore, they'd note that basically everyone on the left agreed that stopping a fascist revolution in Hungary was a good call. If "tankie" meant anything anymore and they bothered to study it, they'd note that it was initially used against British Trots.

        Unfortunately, we live in a really, really dumb world.

        • Barabas [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I mean, they're the ones correctly calling the trots tankies and being mocked for it.

          • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            I figure it is easier to gently correct people by letting them continue mocking the people they're mocking than to point out that they are mocking people for being correct.

            Besides, the core problem is still that the word doesn't mean anything at this point.

    • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      For every dumb take there is at least one trot group with like a dozen members that endorses it.