This is probably the proper Marxist answer. Besides, those of us that defend the USSR under Stalin literally argue that things worked out that way because of the material conditions, Stalin’s personal leadership is negligible.
However, if permanent rev became the official doctrine, I don’t know if the USSR even survives that long. The material reality in the 20s was that the Red Army couldn’t just sweep across Europe to spread socialism. So then it comes down to “was Trotsky just criticising the leadership for making hard but necessary choices because he was butthurt, or would he actually have stuck to his guns if he was in power?”. The quote you mention seems to suggest the former.
Trotsky probably was just salty about not being GenSec, he had a notoriously big head about himself as a revolutionary. You're right though, he wanted international rev and when it didn't pop off he probably would've fomented it covertly while offering the international commies support of the Red Army. He was way too optimistic about revolutionary contagion.
The leaders of the CNT and FAI themselves declared after the uprising of May 1937: “Had we wished, we could have seized power at any time, because all the forces were on our side, but we did not want any dictatorship,” etc., etc. What the Anarchist servitors of the bourgeoisie did or did not want is in the long run a secondary issue. They did, however, admit that the insurrectionary proletariat was strong enough to have conquered power. Had it possessed a revolutionary and not a treacherous leadership, it would have purged the state apparatus of all the Azañas, instituted the power of the soviets, given the land to the peasants, the mills and factories to the workers – and the Spanish revolution would have become socialist and unconquerable.
But because there was no revolutionary party in Spain, and because there was instead a multitude of reactionaries imagining themselves as Socialists and Anarchists, they succeeded under the label of the Popular Front in strangling the socialist revolution and assuring Franco’s victory.
On the Causes of the Defeat of the Spanish Revolution
Funny enough, he advocated the popular front in Germany, but the Trotskyist line was always the necessity of the revolution as part of a struggle against fascism.
The policy of a united front of the workers against fascism flows from this situation. It opens up tremendous possibilities to the Communist Party. A condition for success, however, is the rejection of the theory and practice of "social fascism", the harm of which becomes a positive measure under the present circumstances.
The social crisis will inevitably produce deep cleavages within the social democracy. The radicalization of the masses will affect the social democrats. We will inevitably have to make agreements with various social-democratic organizations and factions against fascism, putting definite conditions in this connection to the leaders, before the eyes of the masses.... We must return from the empty official phrase about the united front to the policy of the united front as it was formulated by Lenin and always applied by the Bolsheviks in 1917.
he wasn't for literally declaring war, just accepting the real situation they were in: a socialist country in a capitalist world. stalin desperately tried to ally with the west against the nazis and they basically spit in his face (cus the west was always at war with the USSR despite not declaring it) so then he went to ally with the fucking nazis (and got some success). Trotsky just was admitting the truth that everyone knew, socialists and capitalists cannot cooperate. The capitalists will always do whatever they can to destroy the socialists.
Plus the fact that he realized the truth that we're living in now, that a socialist country cannot succeed while a global capitalist empire is in place. So he wanted to start weakening that empire, the same thing China has been doing for it's entire existence as a socialist state and the same thing any real leftist wants.
as important as material conditions are, they aren't everything either
ignoring basically all of the rest of political theory is almost as dumb as normal theorists ignoring material conditions. not every action taken by a leader is rational, especially true when you have authoritarian leaders
deleted by creator
This is probably the proper Marxist answer. Besides, those of us that defend the USSR under Stalin literally argue that things worked out that way because of the material conditions, Stalin’s personal leadership is negligible.
However, if permanent rev became the official doctrine, I don’t know if the USSR even survives that long. The material reality in the 20s was that the Red Army couldn’t just sweep across Europe to spread socialism. So then it comes down to “was Trotsky just criticising the leadership for making hard but necessary choices because he was butthurt, or would he actually have stuck to his guns if he was in power?”. The quote you mention seems to suggest the former.
Trotsky probably was just salty about not being GenSec, he had a notoriously big head about himself as a revolutionary. You're right though, he wanted international rev and when it didn't pop off he probably would've fomented it covertly while offering the international commies support of the Red Army. He was way too optimistic about revolutionary contagion.
Would he have offered material support to the Spanish Republicans, though?
probably, but i dont think he would propose the popular front between republicans and anarchists
On the Causes of the Defeat of the Spanish Revolution
Funny enough, he advocated the popular front in Germany, but the Trotskyist line was always the necessity of the revolution as part of a struggle against fascism.
Fascism: What it is and How to Fight it
If Trotsky had had less of a big head, there probably wouldn't have been as much left infighting.
deleted by creator
he wasn't for literally declaring war, just accepting the real situation they were in: a socialist country in a capitalist world. stalin desperately tried to ally with the west against the nazis and they basically spit in his face (cus the west was always at war with the USSR despite not declaring it) so then he went to ally with the fucking nazis (and got some success). Trotsky just was admitting the truth that everyone knew, socialists and capitalists cannot cooperate. The capitalists will always do whatever they can to destroy the socialists.
Plus the fact that he realized the truth that we're living in now, that a socialist country cannot succeed while a global capitalist empire is in place. So he wanted to start weakening that empire, the same thing China has been doing for it's entire existence as a socialist state and the same thing any real leftist wants.
deleted by creator
as important as material conditions are, they aren't everything either
ignoring basically all of the rest of political theory is almost as dumb as normal theorists ignoring material conditions. not every action taken by a leader is rational, especially true when you have authoritarian leaders
exactly, saying material condions are 100% responsible for what Stalin did is vulgar materialism and not Marxist.
“Negligible” =/= non-existent
Yeah, I really don't think he would have been that different. Maybe slower collectivization.