What did they mean by this?

And how did that decision to not actively pursue global revolution work out in the end?

I love when these stupid "really existing socialism" arguments continue to get regurgitated a good quarter of a century after really existing socialism ceased to really exist.

The Soviet Union provided material support and incited communists all over the world during Stalin and past him, so what decision are you implying?

Everyone get on track…. The lesson is the Jews fucked up everything socialism, communism, capitalism and fascism… The solution is not let the jews lead you back to one of the above with them in the shadows

Not good, but perhaps you should blame the German Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the other chauvinist parties for that and not the Bolsheviks. They betrayed the revolution already. The second internationale was supposed to be internationalist.

And what is the proof to such a claim? You almost sound as if the people be in better shape without the Jews. Ok, Europe and Middle East is influenced by Jews. Oriental Empires, and pretty much the whole world was jew-free.

Strange… It seems that Jewish inventions boosted the civilizations they were in…

They only provided support to movements that were already strong and, even then, only to ones that kissed the ass of the CPSU in just the right way. They only really gave Cuba and Vietnam support after their revolutions were well under way and basically sat on their hands and watched as the United States and national bourgeoisie destroyed Chile. They even outright told their affiliates in France to oppose the 1968 uprising. The fact that they didn't stick their heads entirely in the sand doesn't give them many points in my book.

I wasn't blaming the Bolsheviks, I'm blaming the guy that murdered the Bolsheviks and his cadre of yes-men.

The implication of your previous post is that you were blaming Bolsheviks such as Stalin for not pursuing world revolution, as say the Trotsky would have done with "permanent revolution." The question is what could have even been done after the betrayal of 1914? Nothing could have been done, by then world revolution was essentially impossible as the majority supported their own countries imperialist policies. But it was still possible to have a revolution in one country, and to pursue an internationalist policy from one country.

Also your post was very vague, but in the course of the differences about the revolution the party had a conflict with Trotskyists and Bukharinites that had an idealistic position. These people were tried for their opposition they were not "murdered by Stalin"

Stalin murdered the Bolsheviks.

And get his dusty, decaying dick out of your mouth. Social chauvinist policy was closely associated with the unmitigated disaster that was the First World War. It would have been easy to rebuild internationalism after the death and destruction wrought by nationalism. The policy of Socialism in One Country was an incredibly stupid move.

Stalin murdered the entirety of the Old Bolsheviks in his purges and ultimately doomed 20th century socialism to the failure that it became by trying farcically to make peace with the enemy.

Well, duh. But why did he do it? And do you think if, say, Trotsky would ascend, he would rule with pacifism and humility?

No, Trotsky would likely have been more violent than Stalin.

But likely not against other communists. He wouldn't have played this dumb farce where you attempt to make peace with the forces of capital while murdering communists.

They supported the Spanish republicans even though they were weaker and fighting against a stronger and better equipped nationalist army, and they did so even though the republicans weren't entirely pro-communist entirely for ideological reasons of opposing fascism. That failed, thats what supporting movements that aren't already strong can lead to.
The original revolution in Cuba was not really communist, but they turned to the USSR later on because they wanted support against the United States, so it is the other way around that Cuba turned to the USSR later on. In the case of Chile, you may want to look at the blackpill thread in the index on it. There is not much the USSR could have done anyways they didn't have the means to support every movement around the world.

Yeah sure, it would have been "easy" to rebuild internationalism after the first world war, lets just brush aside the existence of fascism, and everything that led to.
The alternative?

Trotsky would initiate repressions against the Russian Communist party, until noone would think to challenge him. Trotsky would demand loyalty and supremacy of the Soviet Russia from the foreign communists. Again, not different from Stalin.

They were weaker because the Stalinist faction created a civil war between the Republican factions.

They could have sent them arms, funds, troops if that turned out to be necessary, etc.

Fascism was a joke until the rise of Hitler, and it took him well over a decade to rise to power since the end of the First World War.

Active pursuit of world revolution by providing critical support to global socialist movements and revolutions.

Sure, but would he have murdered 600 thousand Bolsheviks while signing a non-aggression pact with the Nazis so he could invade Finland? I have my doubts.

Russia tried to forge an antigerman coalition at the earliest stage, and proposed the stance of "any aggressive move means war" to France and Britain post Anschluss.

No they were weaker because the nationalists were stronger, they had more advanced and modern military equipment from the nearby Nazis, support of the clergy and middle classes, even naval support from the British and French embargo. They would have won even without a "civil war."

It is more accurate to say that the anarchists were not really a committed part of the republican faction, so they created a civil conflict on their own although the republicans would have lost anyways. The anarchists had even less of a chance of actually making a permanent change and combating the fascists so supporting them wouldn't have helped either.
The USSR couldn't send its troops to every country in every continent like the US did, and besides the Chileans would have to request it first.
It wasn't a joke for all the workers that were harassed or killed by the Nazis in the streets before then or to the worker's movement in general as Nazis would harass and shut down worker's clubs.
How is that better achieved without having socialism in one country to start with? That is exactly what the Soviets did after revolution in one country was successful.

ok
do you have anything to rebut over

Obvious Jew-hating aside, there is nothing wrong with this. Of course our faith has radical tendencies and that's a good thing.

How do you explain all the Jewish radicals? How do you explain why so many Bolsheviks were Jews? How do you explain why so many Jews in the early 20th century became anarchists?

Our religious teachings are far, far more compatible with communism (and history has proven this) than Islam, Christianity, etc.

Jej my friendo. Way to be a fucking idealist anyway.
Russian Jews where part of the intelligentsia that's about it my fam