I don't see how to protect this hypothetical socialist state either. Cuba has managed to escape any attempts that the US has made to overthrow it's democratic mandate but it had the support of the USSR in it's early stages and there's no hegemonic power right now that could be of similar help.
I'm not a particularly bright person, and I don't think I'll ever have a proper answer.
The coup in Bolivia kind proved that even social democracy is off the table if it interferes with imperialist interests.
This is a problem that all anti-capitalist ideologies have to face.
The capitalist hegemony has an interest in preventing nations from shifting away from the status quo, so socialist, anarchist, whatever revolution that is fought, however it is fought. It will have to carry out some practices that would be decried as authoritarian to protect themselves from outside interference.
That you seem to take the comments on deadly seriously.
Complaining my shitposty reply to a shitposty comment doesn't fit your personal formal debate rules isn't dunking, it's pissing yourself in public.
Tankies forget that Trotsky existed.
Is somehow also not saying that people don't know shit.
Your only excuse that you didn't want to waste time is invalidated by the numerous attempts to dunk on me in this comment thread.
Where did I say that. All I said was that I didn't feel like writing a lot about Trotsky when I figured we both had some knowledge of him.
I really gotta wonder why you're still doing this since you obviously think it's a waste of time.
OK that's a lot to look up, thanks for the recommendation.
The comment I'm replying to also didn't explain their stance either. Is there any particular reason you wanna only whinge at me?
If you want to know something you merely have to ask. Maybe explain that you don't know much about a subject matter.
My initial comment was to someone who has an opinion on Trotsky and thus probably knows who he was, so I didn't feel like typing up a whole-ass essay on the guy. Y'know?
Genuine question, if you don't have a stance on Trotsky, and you don't know fuck all about him, why are you wading into this comment chain in the first place?
I took it for granted that people who had a stance on Trotsky would know who he is.
Because I wanted to know, why do you think Trotsky was less authoritarian than Stalin?
That the USSR managed to last long as long as it did despite being invaded by more developed nations multiple times during the aftermath of its revolution and eventually collapsed largely due to its own internal corruption does put paid to the idea that some authoritarian measures will help protect a socialist state from external attempts to destabilise it.
The problem seems to be one inherent within the structure of states. Any heirarchical structure like that is fit to be abused by someone sufficiently self interested that they'd put their own interests above the interests of the people gestures at Mikhail Gorbachev selling the USSR out to the Western core for his own enrichment.
Anarchism, being decentralised, might be able to withstand some of the issues that were present in the late USSR. But previous anarchist attempts have been crushed by outside actors much easier than socialist attempts.
I don't really know what there is to be done.