He should have became the red Bonaparte through his control of the Red Army, instead of cucking and eventually getting exiled like a loser.
Trotsky fanboys are lame. He would have come up against the same stark reality as Stalin which necessitated socialism in one country.
>>18505977His core idea of socialism not surviving if Soviet Union is alone in it in Europe was correct. However, I feel that his solution would probably have dragged Soviet Union into some war that would have broken it even faster than it did fall in our timeline.
>>18505993I don't think that was fated though. Socialism survived, in a fashion, in China. They just had to avoid liberalizing as much as they did.
>cucking and eventually getting exiled like a loser.That's literally nappy.
>>18506005>avoid liberalizing>cites modern chinawhat? those are two contradictory statements. in fact, the only way for socialism to survive in the USSR would have been to liberalize and implement more controlled market mechanisms . The only reason gorbachev's political initiatives failed is because he tried to reform the political side before reforming the economic side, so it all came tumbling down.
>>18505993>what is the warsaw pact>what is china>what are north korea, vietnam, laos, and cubaThe USSR wasn't alone yet they still collapsed.The end stage of any socialist state is always some revisionist coming in and subverting it.
>>18505962>He should have became the red Bonaparte through his control of the Red ArmyUnfortunately this would require an ounce of testosterone, which the original Bonaparte had in spades.Dic-I mean pic relatedIf you think a "Bronstein" could lead armies you are quire ignorant.
>>18505962How was he supposed to win in Poland
>>18507713>If you think a "Bronstein" could lead armies you are quire ignorant.I mean, didn't he? Say what you will about Trotsky but he was the leader of the Red Army during the civil war. His energy was really explosive, very different from Stalin, it's evident in footage of him:https://youtu.be/oASA46A_FX8Trotskyists tend to be intense sectarians (like the Spartacist League) who polemicize with other socialists a lot. But I admire their passion. Seems like the kind of guy you'd want to follow into battle.
>>18505993>However, I feel that his solution would probably have dragged Soviet Union into some war that would have broken it even faster than it did fall in our timeline.It's hard to say. Like the whole history of it has Trotsky doing different things depending on the situation. He led the peace delegation at Brest-Litovsk, which is the total opposite of a hardline keep-the-war-going position. I was reading some leftcoms mad about him because he held back the Red Army from advancing into Iran to support the Gilan movement while seeking an accord with the British there because he didn't want to get overextended. His military ideas were also more classical than some of other Red Army guys and he worked to bring former Tsarist officers into it.What a lot of people do when they think "Trotsky" or "Stalin" is some very, very simple things that is like pop history. So, Trotsky = internationalism. Stalin = socialism in one country. That's not wrong but it's too simplistic. Some of the important aspects of Stalinist plans like collectivization of agriculture was a Trotsky idea. Idk I don't think any of it was consistent while really these guys were just "doing things" based on what was in front of them. Same with Stalin, like name a policy and I bet you can find that he totally did a 180 on it at one point or another. Also these figures are used as symbols for other things later. Like, the image of Stalin has been very narrowly, very selectively rehabilitated in Russia as a patriotic figure to coopt KPRF boomers to support the government while Trotsky has been demonized in certain popular depictions.
Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Bukharin all eventually realized that capitalism was necessary and that socialism was unfeasible. War Communism was a failure, and they saw that worker ownership led to strikes and workers being lazy and unproductive. That's why they all later defended the need for profits, taylorism and markets.
