Objection

Whenever I've tried to do this I get accused of "sealioning"

It's not "hostility to the working class," it's just objective facts. The CCP originally tried to follow the more orthodox approach of focusing on the industrial proletariat, with the exception of a particular member who had personal experience with the rural peasants and believed they had greater potential for radicalization. The CCP ignored him, and were promptly defeated, leading to the Long March. Among the survivors was that man I mentioned earlier, who was now able to implement his strategy of focusing on the peasants, and as a result of that strategy, even though the communists had been thoroughly defeated, hiding in the most remote regions of China, most of the party dead, the revolution caught on and spread like wildfire.

If othodox Marxist theory was objectively not suited to the conditions of China regarding which class had radicalization potential, because the lack of industrialization meant that the proletariat hadn't really developed, then isn't it reasonable to think that orthodox theory regarding the bourgeoisie was questionable as well?

And in Germany, the so-called "working class" party of the SDP actively fought against the potential of setting up a socialist government, set the freicorps against communists, and insisted on setting up a system where they would give the bourgeoisie power and then work with them to worsen the conditions of the working class. You yourself acknowledged their betrayal of the working class, it's just when they take off their "Second International" hat and put on their "SDP" hat they're absolved of everything, apparently.

Goes to show that the Trotskyist tendency towards blind contrarianism is as strong as ever. If Trotsky and Stalin had switched roles, you'd all be Stalinists, it doesn't even matter what their ideological differences were, you just want to support the guy who lost so that you can imagine he would've done everything perfectly and you don't have to engage with difficult practical decisions. Classic "support every revolution, except the ones that succeed."

I have to wonder how much of it is driven by chauvinism towards developing countries too, as you seem actively hostile to considering their material conditions.

I don't agree with that assessment. The KMT at the time was led by Sun Yat-Sen, who was much more left-leaning than his successor Chiang Kai-Shek. The KMT was originally a revolutionary party that deposed the monarchy, and it had left-wing elements within the party (as well as cooperating with the CCP) before Chiang purged them. Also worth noting that as a pre-industrial, colonized society, the class distinctions were not precisely the same as in Western countries, as demonstrated by the fact that it was by mobilizing the peasants rather than the much smaller industrial proletariat that the Chinese revolution was eventually successful. As argued by Frantz Fanon, class collaboration with the bourgeoisie in poor countries is potentially viable because the primary conflict in those cases is with foreign colonizers.

If you ask me to choose between the early KMT under Sun that overthrew a monarchy and cooperated with communists, and the SDP who betrayed and murdered communists, denounced them as being as bad as fascists, and enacted austerity policies that contributed to the Nazis' rise, I'm picking the early KMT every time.

The correct policy would have been to spread the revolution throughout the world on the basis of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution, as advanced by the Left Opposition.

The failures of the revolutions in Germany through 1923 were terrible tragedies, prepared largely by the betrayals of the Second International and the inexperiance of the new communist KPD of the Third International. This is not something you can really blame Stalin for, but it created the conditions for what followed.

The ultraleft line of the Comintern in its third period led to disaster and betrayal in Germany in the 1930s. Stalin divided the forces working class by refusing to allow a united front of the communists with German Social Democracy.

What? These criticisms are all contradictory.

On the one hand, Stalin should've done more to spread the revolution to other countries, like Germany. On the other hand, he should've convinced the KPD to work together with the SDP instead of taking a more revolutionary approach. Were the SDP not the very people who were in the Second International and betrayed the revolution?

It seems kind of silly to blame the KPD-SDP split on Stalin considering that the social democrats both killed much of the KPD leadership (such as Rosa Luxembourg), and also continued using equivalent language about how the KPD were just as bad as the fascists. The SDP made the decision to align with the bourgeois parties and help them enact austerity policies during an economic crisis, and ultimately to back Hindenburg over Thälmann, who then appointed Hitler. The KPD felt that, in addition to the SDP being utterly uncooperative and uninterested in reconciliation, their association with crushing economic policy made them more of a liability than an asset - in hindsight, this was probably a miscalculation, but the blame is not entirely on them.

Now, if your position was that the USSR should have taken a realpolitik perspective and backed the anticommunist SDP to stop Hitler, despite their attitude to the KPD, that would be a coherent criticism - except that you also criticize the USSR for making a very similar decision in China. The USSR policy viewed the CCP as too weak to win a revolution, and instead aimed to achieve a united front, regardless of ideological disagreements.

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this estimation was an error, but I'm asking for a single coherent path. Either be willing to compromise and work together with anti-communists like the KMT and the SDP, or take a hard line and support revolution - even in the face looming threats from the Nazis in one case and the Japanese on the other. Or, I suppose, take it on a case-by-case basis, in which case your criticism would be less ideological and more personal, regarding Stalin's ability to assess foreign situations - and that's a bit of stretch because I don't think most of the leftists in Germany and China foresaw what would happen in their respective countries either.

Aside from these contradictions, I don't really agree with the Trotskyist demand for an aggressive foreign policy. Of course, Marx predicted a global revolution but Marx was not a prophet, and socialist movements in other countries were not sufficiently developed to follow suit (as evidenced by the failure of the Second International). Trying to create an insurgency within another country is an act of aggression, at least potentially of war, and it seems like you're demanding that the USSR should've gone to war with every country on earth simultaneously to compensate for the failure of those countries' own socialist movements. That would've obviously been suicidal.

The USSR's (post-Stalin) policy of "peaceful coexistence" was based on the correct understanding that such aggression would (perhaps correctly) be seen as a nationalistic act of aggression. Indeed, to the extent that the USSR expanded militarily, for example under Stalin or in Afghanistan, I think it deserves criticism. It seems a lot more reasonable to consolidate their position and serve as a proof of concept for socialists worldwide to follow on their own initiative than to try to impose those conflicts from the outside.

Every fucking time Socialist Alternative shows up, it’s fine until some edgelord dipshit unfurls the fucking huge Soviet flag with Stalin and Mao silk screened on it.

I'm not super familiar with Socialist Alternative, but aren't they a Trotskyist org? What are they doing waving Stalin flags?

The failure of the revolution to take root in Europe (largely a result of the historic betrayal of Social Democracy in the Second International) created conditions for the consolidation of a nationalist clique and a bureaucratic degeneration of the workers state that formed from the victory of the October Revolution.

What path should the USSR have taken instead? (genuine question)

If he hadn't been, would the USSR survived? That focus on technology, factories, and efficiency, no matter the cost, seems like the right approach when there's Nazis at your doorstep, conquering all of Europe and conducting mass exterminations.

i’ll freely admit i’m not reading books on the subject

Let me first clarify a few points then.

Marx and Lenin were also "authoritarian." You should read Engles' On Authority, it's not long and explains his position on the matter, which was consistent with Marx.

"Stalinism" isn't really a thing, nobody calls themselves that, it's just a pejorative for Marxism-Leninism, which was Stalin's stated ideology (in fact, he's the person who coined the term). Marxism-Leninism ("Stalinism") is the most prevalent ideology among self-described communists globally, particularly in the global south.

If Sanders just wanted an authoritarian figure to compare Trump to, there are no shortage of right-wing ones who have much more in common with him. The choice of Stalin seems to be intentional, to distance himself and his own brand of socialism from Stalin and other M-Ls.

I believe this is a flawed strategy, in the same way it would be to accuse a witch-hunter of being a witch. The problem is that you're accepting the premise that witches are real and need to be hunted, and at that point it becomes a question of who can better make the case that they're not a witch - which is going to be the witch-hunter, because that's their job, they know how to play the game, they made the rules. In the same way, right wingers are always going to be more convincing anti-communists than someone who calls himself a socialist, they made the rules of the red scare and they know how to play it. The real way to defeat the witch hunt is to have enough people who aren't afraid of being called witches, and the way to defeat red scare stuff is not to accept the framing and punch left, but to say, "So what if I am a Red?"

I take drive by downvotes as a compliment, the meaning I get from them is, "I don't like this because it challenged my beliefs in a way I can't answer." Great! That's what I was going for.

Of course, there are more recent things that we can look at to understand modern American christofascism. However, I would argue that twisting around Jesus' words to justify bad things has a very long history, and that you can point to the time of Constantine and the ways in which Christianity came to support Roman imperialism as a starting point. It may not be a direct line, but it's part of the same tradition. By the same token, you could point to how Christianity was used to support colonialism much later. At some point, people should stop being surprised when this happens because it's been happening for 1700 years.

I’m just not interested in condemning the Romans of 1700 years ago

But you praised Constantine for preserving the empire. If you're going to apply that moral framework then I get to apply my own too.

you’re demonizing the Roman Empire as if we’re in any way special in its slaving and conquering in the ancient world.

I said nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is that there were early Christians who opposed some of these things, and that movement was co-opted and started supporting them.

That said, historically speaking, it’s not at all obvious that you can ascribe to Constantine the idea of an orthodox Christianity

As I said, however much responsibility you want to ascribe to him, it remains true that this sort of thing goes back to his time.

In any case, theologically speaking, this idea of a pure original Christian message of Jesus that needs to be rescued by later impurities is a fundamentally protestant one, i.e., it’s a very particular way of understanding Christianity that doesn’t have any essential claim to be the only legitimate way of understanding Christianity. Not coming from a protestant (or a Counter-Reformation) background myself I don’t even particularly feel the need to refute it, I find the very question basically irrelevant.

I also find it irrelevant, which is why I never said anything like that. I don't believe there was a "pure" Christian message that needs to be "rescued." No, early Christians were weird cranks with many wrong ideas about many things, which is part of how they were able to be co-opted. Nevertheless, they were weird cranks that said and did some ok things some times, especially relative to the empire.

You're trying to create this false dichotomy where either early Christians were the pure, divinely inspired carriers of God's teachings, or else everyone at the time was equally bad, and the only measure of goodness is stability and survival. This is reductive nonsense. Early Christianity was a relatively progressive, flawed movement within the empire, and it was able to be subverted and co-opted by the empire into supporting many of it's worst practices. This is not a "fundamentally protestant" perspective, nor does it treat the Roman Empire as "special" in regards to other states in the ancient world, both of those claims are baseless strawmen.