deleted by creator

its a misappropriation from like, hearts of iron games, that Trotsky meant sending armies in all directions and burning out in an orgy of revolutionary violence. his premiership would've been weird in a lot of ways but he wasn't going to try and get the whole world to invade the USSR lol

its just semantics between SiOC (we're taking a breather and admitting it) and how World Revolution would've manifested (we're pausing and building our forces revolutionarily to eventually help our brothers and sisters overseas), realism would dominate policy for whichever clique controlled the union.

and the opposition would've always argued that they were doing it wrong---imagine an alt stalin writing from istanbul that Trotsky's bullish foreign policy had scared away the -all but assured under his policies- anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France before Germany would be allowed to take Czechia, and then if the Soviets faced defeat somewhere it'd be because they spent too much on foreign aid 'aventurism' and not enough on self-strengthening :both-sides:

I’d recommend reading Ch. 3 of Foundations of Leninism for a summation of this. Also, while some Trotskyists frame SIOC as a vulgar development of Stalin, Lenin (who both Trotskyists and MLs would like to claim as their own) actually spoke on this matter on several occasions.

this might be a little heavyweight for chat, you might get more responses in c/marxism or c/askchapo

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

I'll try to keep it short.

In the midst of the 1905 revolution, Trotsky dreams up this idea that in underdeveloped countries workers have to play the role of the democratic revolutionary forces because the national bourgeoisie are incapable of it. In this theory, since the workers are in charge already, they can/must carry out the revolution all the way through (thus making it permanent). I think importantly here for Trotsky, just because Communists are in charge doesn't mean it's socialism.

In 1924, after Europe begins to quiet down, Lenin dies and Stalin begins consolidating power in the CPSU. Domestically this was the height of the NEP which was seen kind of like a truce with the semi-bourgeois peasantry. Internationally (in what is known as the "Second Period"), Comintern policy begins to shift away from "The international worker's revolution is imminent" because it clearly wasn't. The new direction was characterized by:

1. Thawing relations with the capitalist powers in Europe
2. Pursuing socialist development in the USSR
3. Supporting bourgeois-democratic forces where it was of strategic interest to the USSR (specifically in the colonized world)

Trotskyists would also characterize the Second Period as the beginning of the USSR exercising strong control over foreign Communist Parties, bureaucratization, and being extremely right wing (for a Communist Party). The third point is probably where the largest break with the theory of Permanent Revolution is. Trotsky and his followers were strongly in favor of Communists standing on their own (or with less radical workers in a united front) as opposition to all bourgeois forces. Perhaps the most famous instance of this break is in China where the Communists were directed to support the Kuomintang and they got burnt badly for it (though I would argue the KMT would have turned their sights towards the Communists regardless)

Socialism in One Country was of course an attempt to reconcile that the "grand prophecy" of the international worker's revolution didn't happen after 1917 and the USSR basically stood alone. Navigating reality on both international and domestic fronts required pragmatism and a degree of cooperation with the capitalist powers of the world.

The theory of Permanent Revolution wasn't that the USSR should have been invading and establishing socialist states in other countries. It's more so that the Comintern (which was dominated by the USSR) should have maintained a more revolutionary line internationally. As we get into the Third Period of the Comintern and then the Popular Front we see the focus shift towards fascism and social democracy. Those debates resemble this one but I've already written too much.