If you hit it off and she's not against leftist unity, go for it. Not everyone has to agree 100% with the party line of the SU in March 1953. Plenty of people date succdems or anarchists or leftcoms and it works out fine. We're all less edgelordy offline where we have to live together.
And you know, Trots sometimes come out with good things, like their critique of the nomenklatura being a bunch of detached asshats looks fucking good after 1992.
Trotsky and later Trots critique Stalin on a few major points, one is branch stacking the party with unideological loyalists to gain control (this is 70% being butthurt because Trotsky was doing more or less the same thing, only he wasn't Party Secretary.)
The other is Stalin reducing direct worker control of production and heavily centralising control under a state apparatus of party nomenklatura, a process already started under Lenin (the just-so story goes he began it after his train almost fell off a recently "repaired" bridge and someone described the bridge construction quality as "Soviety".)
We can argue if Stalin had a real choice here, or if Trotsky would really have allowed the level of worker control later Trots imply, but Trotsky claims that the creation of this technocratic loyalist apparatus without ties to the Old Bolsheviks would ultimately result in the Soviet Mid-Upper Leadership being apathetic and detached ideologically from the Soviets themselves, and result either in them becoming a new ruling class (as the Cliffites argue) or capitulating to the capitalists for more wealth (as actually happened.)
The Soviets did recognise this and try to counter with intense ideological education, but it rapidly became rote learning. Mao also criticises this lack of leadership involvement with the actual workers day-to-day struggle, which is what lead to the Mass Line concept.
If you hit it off and she's not against leftist unity, go for it. Not everyone has to agree 100% with the party line of the SU in March 1953. Plenty of people date succdems or anarchists or leftcoms and it works out fine. We're all less edgelordy offline where we have to live together.
And you know, Trots sometimes come out with good things, like their critique of the nomenklatura being a bunch of detached asshats looks fucking good after 1992.
deleted by creator
Trotsky and later Trots critique Stalin on a few major points, one is branch stacking the party with unideological loyalists to gain control (this is 70% being butthurt because Trotsky was doing more or less the same thing, only he wasn't Party Secretary.)
The other is Stalin reducing direct worker control of production and heavily centralising control under a state apparatus of party nomenklatura, a process already started under Lenin (the just-so story goes he began it after his train almost fell off a recently "repaired" bridge and someone described the bridge construction quality as "Soviety".)
We can argue if Stalin had a real choice here, or if Trotsky would really have allowed the level of worker control later Trots imply, but Trotsky claims that the creation of this technocratic loyalist apparatus without ties to the Old Bolsheviks would ultimately result in the Soviet Mid-Upper Leadership being apathetic and detached ideologically from the Soviets themselves, and result either in them becoming a new ruling class (as the Cliffites argue) or capitulating to the capitalists for more wealth (as actually happened.)
The Soviets did recognise this and try to counter with intense ideological education, but it rapidly became rote learning. Mao also criticises this lack of leadership involvement with the actual workers day-to-day struggle, which is what lead to the Mass Line concept.