The USSR did focus on international revolution, and aided many countries in their revolutions. Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was based on a distrust of the peasantry, believing them to undermine socialist construction and thus requiring a revolution in western Europe for long-term socialism in Russia. This ended up being false, and moreover, had the soviets not committed to building up heavy industry as much as they had, they would have lost to the Nazis in World War II.
Stalin’s point was that it was better to focus on solidifying socialism in Russia over launching a suicidal attack on the peasantry immediately after establishing state power Stalin was wary of the peasantry, but did not follow through with Trotsky’s plan.
Further, there’s no evidence that the USSR would have been better off administratively had they elected Trotsky. The Fourth International itself was a mess, and Trotskyist parties are notorious for their lack of discipline and their tendency to endlessly split, rather than form a unified line and push for it. The Trotskyist parties that survive actually often return to Marxism-Leninism because of this, because Marxism-Leninism is correct.
If Trotsky’s ideas had been implemented, the USSR would have been ethnically cleansed by the Nazis, and the rest of Europe would have fallen to them, save Italy & Spain which were already fascist.
I think a better basis is instead looking at why the soviets did what they did in the first place before asking what might have been different otherwise.
trotsky had the right idea - less bureaucracy in the communist party and more focus on international revolution. seriously!
do you really think i should study marxist-leninist theory a bit more and often?
The revolutions in Vietnam and China demonstrate that no, the peasants had revolutionary potential.
The USSR did focus on international revolution, and aided many countries in their revolutions. Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was based on a distrust of the peasantry, believing them to undermine socialist construction and thus requiring a revolution in western Europe for long-term socialism in Russia. This ended up being false, and moreover, had the soviets not committed to building up heavy industry as much as they had, they would have lost to the Nazis in World War II.
stalin was very suspicious of the peasants, thus proving trotsky’s point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union
Stalin’s point was that it was better to focus on solidifying socialism in Russia over launching a suicidal attack on the peasantry immediately after establishing state power Stalin was wary of the peasantry, but did not follow through with Trotsky’s plan.
Further, there’s no evidence that the USSR would have been better off administratively had they elected Trotsky. The Fourth International itself was a mess, and Trotskyist parties are notorious for their lack of discipline and their tendency to endlessly split, rather than form a unified line and push for it. The Trotskyist parties that survive actually often return to Marxism-Leninism because of this, because Marxism-Leninism is correct.
is “marxism-leninism-trotskyism” (a fusion of ml ideas and trotskyism) possible?
Trotskyism is Trotsky’s ideas of Marxism and Leninism, so no.
If Trotsky’s ideas had been implemented, the USSR would have been ethnically cleansed by the Nazis, and the rest of Europe would have fallen to them, save Italy & Spain which were already fascist.
what about bukharin? if he takes over instead of stalin and his ideas were implemented, what would the ussr be like? the ussr be better off?
No. Bukharin was both a Mechanist and a right-opportunist that rejected collectivization, and ultimately stood against the USSR.
I think it’s better for you to confront the ghost of Stalin than focus on what the USSR may have been had someone else been elected.
maybe Grigory Zinoviev, perhaps?
Why the alt-history focus?
i’m just asking what would the ussr would be like if someone other than stalin (or trotsky) led the country after lenin (like zinoviev)
I think a better basis is instead looking at why the soviets did what they did in the first place before asking what might have been different otherwise.