:frothingfash: :chad-trotsky:

(Just gonna put out there that this is a common myth among neonazis. An Indian Affairs officer coined the term)

Anyway, I’m shocked Mr. Resting-Dipshit-Face’s sub reclined into open fascism.

:live-tucker-reaction:

Link

  • vccx [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    You think focusing on exporting arms and ammunition out of the USSR and gambling them on other revolutions in the lead-up to the second world war would have been a better idea than reinforcing the Soviet Union where the revolution had already won and was able to wage a genuine existential threat to global capital for 70 years and crush axis fascism

    The cold war was more or less unwinnable, especially after the Sino Soviet split. There's a reason basically all the Bolsheviks thought permanent revolution was the worse option. Especially considering how weak the eastern european communist parties were (exported revolutions) compared to the CPSU and CPC.

    Nevermind that the Soviet Union and China managed to create Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam and were actively exporting revolution where they thought they could succwed.

      • please_dont [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The amount of soviet involvement required in Germany during the 30s to have the communists come out on top (especially since the SDP was anti communist and non cooperative to its core) would be paramount to starting a full scale civil war there and then being forced to directly being involved military wise for the german communists in a open proxy war against the liberal/right wing side that would be backed by the entirety of global capital while you are...the USSR of the 30s. At a point where the USSR couldnt project that kind of power let alone defend from it . They industrialization, militarization , modernization etc wherent even halfway done. Chosing to openly wage a proxy war in germany and spain during the state of material and military development they were in the 30s would be paramount to suicide with an extremely high chance of those countries NOT turning red, being invaded by fascism while in a much worse position or just not achieving the objectives in spain and germany and collapsing internaly much earlier

        After the war again the USSR had to rebuild the entire eastern front from rubble without imperialist or colonial extraction to back that transformation up . What particular revolution post WW2 you think about where the USSR should have been much more involved ? Vietnam ? How much more ? They still won there and had a pro soviet state. Cuba? They did. Join in on the Greek civil war in the 40s? Maybe. I am greek so this is really interesting what if tho i cant help but think this would end up in a Korean war situation and due to it being a war on european soil again years after WWII it could have expanded into even worse outcomes

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

      I agree with everything you’re saying but you’re giving waaaaay to much credit to China for revolutions in other countries. China left SU on an island when it came to ideological alignment in foreign policy, to say China was a major positive contributor to the Cuban revolution and even Vietnam is a bit off mark with what actually happened

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

      Soviet Union and China managed to create Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam

      this but more, Germany, France, etc..

      The cold war was more or less unwinnable

      because the USSR had no major allies who were ideologically aligned with them after world war 2 due to their isolationist perspective in the previous years. the national bourgeois in the west was able to suppress socialist movements.

      I'm not saying it 100% would be better, I'm saying socialism in one country 100% was a failure in the USSR, so why are people so ardently anti Trot when his perspective has not been shown to be a failure?

      • please_dont [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Germany when ? During the 10s and 20s? This isnt Stalin's policy vs Trotsky's policy. Trotsky was there and backed the party's foreign policy approach on those issues ?

        In the 30s?

        The amount of soviet involvement required in Germany during the 30s to have the communists come out on top (especially since most of the SDP was anti communist and non cooperative to its core) would be paramount to starting a full scale civil war there and then being forced to directly being involved military wise for the german communists in a open proxy war against the liberal/right wing side that would be backed by the entirety of global capital while you are…the USSR of the 30s. At a point where the USSR couldnt project that kind of power let alone defend from it and a failure of that attempt would leave them extremely weak. The industrialization, militarization , modernization etc wherent even halfway done. Chosing what would logicaly lead to open proxy war in germany and spain during the state of development and organization they were in the 30s would be paramount to suicide imo with an extremely high chance of those countries NOT turning red, USSR invaded by the subsequent fascism while in a much worse position or just not achieving the objectives in spain and germany and collapsing internaly much earlier and never having even an "eastern bloc" allied to them