To be fair, in the comments are some sources that made me go :bruh:
https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/p75ca8/context_unncessary/
Edit: I did find a “tankie” that says “prolonging the civil war + US occupation would be worse than a Taliban peace”, also coupmed with “the immediate fall of the Afghan military is proof that the Taliban are more legitimate rulers than the US puppet government”. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1i0ipzS754
I can honestly look at the theory of Permanent Revolution, say exactly and precisely why I disagree with it
I mean, isn’t the NEP, to an extent, the implementation of Permanent Revolution in practice?
With the distance of time (and the Soviet Union no longer existing), we can admire the contributions that Trotsky made to the revolution, while condemning his later turn.
The anarchists (if they studied the subject) would note that none of Trotsky’s objections to Stalinism had to do with the degree of state repression and Trotsky’s common position on repressive actions was “I’d have done that, but better”. If they were cogent enough about USSR history to understand why it mattered, they’d note that Trotsky was just as much in agreement with Lenin as Stalin on the subject of the Worker’s Opposition and that the roots of Stalinism were not on the silly debate over Socialism in One Country or Amorphous Posturing Internationalism, but in the rejection of the program of the Worker’s Opposition. If “tankie” meant anything anymore, they’d note that basically everyone on the left agreed that stopping a fascist revolution in Hungary was a good call. If “tankie” meant anything anymore and they bothered to study it, they’d note that it was initially used against British Trots.
Unfortunately, we live in a really, really dumb world.
I mean, they’re the ones correctly calling the trots tankies and being mocked for it.
