MustCrushCapitalism

Socialism in one country is not a rejection of the necessity of spreading revolution, and never has been. If you're against establishing trade ties, and think that the Soviets should have merely declared war on the capitalist world, then that is is absurd, ultra-left, and anti-Marxist as socialism can only be established by the self-emancipation of the working class, not its export at the barrel of a gun as Trotsky sometimes proposed. In countries where feudalism was still the ruling order, a bourgeois revolution was needed first to clear the way for a proletarian revolution. Furthermore, there cannot be the basis for a proletarian dictatorship in countries where the proletarian makes up only a tiny fraction of the population. The bourgeois revolution has never been able to be skipped in any country, permanent revolution is the doctrine of a quack and has been proven false by the historical experience.

Permanent revolution is a hack doctrine. It was never a doctrine of the Bolsheviks, and Lenin has gone on record as calling it "absurdly left". That is also a gross distortion of the social-fascist doctrine. It never proclaimed workers who were part of reformist parties to be fascists, it proclaimed the leadership of such parties to be bourgeois, and that the essence of such parties was bourgeois and no collaboration between a bourgeois and proletarian party was possible. They tried to win over the workers in such parties. There was a wing of the KPD which regarded all workers who were part of soc-dem parties as social-fascists, but this was regarded as ultra-left and incorrect; this view was defeated and marginalized. That is also a distortion of the doctrine of building socialism in one country.

Nah, Andres Nin.

Perminant Revolution would of been the doctrine of comintern, like it was in october for the bolsheviks. the entire nature of comintern was changed once soic was the new line taken by the soviet leadership. but the N.E.P. would of ended sooner, and workers who weren't part of CPs by the late 1920s wouldn't of been declared as fascists. however soic meant that things like trade agreements and "mutual defense pacts," with capitalist governments would have been valued more than aggitating and organizing for revolutions in those countries.

Holy shit, banned over something in Pour Your Heart Out? That's... not good.

Anyway @Brolotov in case you end up looking here since I can respond on your wall - sorry man, it wasn't meant like that. I think you said something about going blind? I actually know one other person going through something similar - a comrade of mine who I've known for a veeeeeeeery long time (Kiwi Viking on here, doesn't really ever come on).

It's pretty depressing to have another ML comrade banned, we're not exactly abundant around here and you were probably one of the best ML posters.

Anyway this is a reminder of why it's good to have accounts with similar usernames on different sites. I'm also on a certain left-com forum, politics-forum, and soviet empire. I'd highly recomend signing up somewhere like that.