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

  • 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.