The figure head of SiOC has to be Stalin, but he was definitely no slouch when it came to spreading the revolution. The Soviet union invaded Finland, The Baltics, Romania, Poland, Mongolia, Iran, and Xinjiang. they also gave significant support to the Chinese, Korean, and Spanish revolutions. interestingly enough, all those invasions are basically universally denounced by Trots. Regardless, they represent the USSR invading practically every country it bordered and every important socialist revolution of the time apart from the Greek partisans.

So as I see it, what else could they have done?

Declared war on the United Kingdom in the 1920s? obviously a disaster, once the Soviets lost in Poland, I don't see how anything like this could be held as viable, but you can also blame Stalin for losing in Poland, if you wish.

Declare war on Fascist Germany sooner? the Soviet Union wasn't ready to fight Hitler in 1941, let alone the 1930s. They had no border with Germany, and Poland refused them when they did consider an invasion of Germany, but I guess you could argue the war would've gone better earlier when Germany hadn't fully remilitarized, and didn't have GPMGs, or Czech tanks or Romanian oil.

Spurn the Capitalist world and refuse to do partnerships with Germany and the USA? Frankly, the partnerships and expertise they received from the USA in the 1930s were critical to defending from the Nazis. We've seen how socialism develops when you try to replace capitalist technology with the revolutionary enthusiasm(which the soviet union wasn't immune to either, see "Soviet Tempo") and the result is backyard furnaces and backsliding.

Edit: And trade with Nazi Germany? Cotton for Heavy Machinery is not, I think, a morally bankrupt deal. Oil for Heavy Machinery is more concerning, but again, the Soviet union was not ready to fight Hitler even in 1941. if you embargo a country, there can be consequences. just months after Barbarossa, Japan declared war on the United States because of an oil embargo against them.

Yes, the Soviet Revolution was eventually crushed and ended in ignominy less than a century later, and it was precisely because they couldn't overcome their being under siege for their entire existence, but I still don't see how a rapid war to defeat foreign capitalism is given as a viable suggestion.

  • truth [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Here's my sleepy dumb guy explanation of the factionalism in the CPSU after lenin's death:

    "Left wing" faction aka Trotsky and his councilist friends. They were seeking to continuously and constantly expand the revolution until all nations were brought together. While this kind of global scope is necessary for communism, this path would have committed the SU to constant hostility with all other powers, significantly disrupting trade and putting the SU in an environment of complete isolation.

    "Right wing" faction aka Bukharin and da bois. Arguing for a slow adoption of socialism within the SU due to its low economic development. Wanted to develop capitalism within the feudal economy before transitioning to socialism. Argued for a continuation of the NEP into a socialist market economy that would be able to trade with the west. While hindsight here in 2023 shows us the success of this path as taken by nations like the PRC, neither the workers of the SU nor the peasants had just fought a revolution and civil war just to be poor and not have enough money again. They wanted socialism.

    "Centrist" faction led by Stalin. Socialism on one country was designed to strike a balance between the two positions, ending the left aggressive foreign policy in favor of internal development. However, instead of a gradual adoption of socialism through market based reforms, there was instead direct seizure of industries and property, nationalizing all resources and trying to implement rapid industrialization. Through his clever maneuvering and striking this balance Stalin was able to come out of top of this struggle, and he purged his opponents following so as to keep the soviet union united and not arguing over different visions of what socialism could be. This became very important as well once the consequences of Stalin's rapid industrialization began to be felt by the people.

    Honestly, they were in a bind either way. Stalin took the political path that he did imo more out of a desire to hold the SU together as a project rather than any specific end goal or commitment to any single strategy. Trotsky's permanent revolution likely would have caused destruction from without, and Bukharin's market reforms may very well have destroyed it from within. However, I personally blame Stalin's politics for the knock on effects on the structure of the soviet union's economy and beuracracy that caused it to be unable to meaningfully reform following his passing that led to it's ultimate failure. Stalin's adopted Russian chauvinism being passed through continuity of the SU led to the sino soviet split. The way the economy was broken up and power restored to small holders and factory managers prevented economic progress and development after the 1960s which causes the plans to fail over and over, making it unable to keep up with the hostile west.

    Tldr it was always fucked

        • Catradora__Stalinism [comrade/them,she/her]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think Stalin failed to construct a system that could survive without happening to have an excellent Marxist leader at the helm

          I mean, kind of hard to do when being absolutely ripped to shreds from all sides

      • ssjmarx [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        So you're saying that if I had a time machine, the way to save the Soviet Union is to go back to the mid 20s and teach the Bolsheviks MMT? :soviet-hmm: