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.