That implication isn’t certain. An alternate (charitable?) reading of it is that they’re saying that a revolutionary state dominated by anarchists (or by a broad united front) would have been strong enough to never allow the monarchies to invade, and pre-empt the fascists from taking power at least in Germany.
This begs the question, though. Historically, we don’t see united fronts being all that stable and we don’t see anarchists becoming regional geopolitical heavy hitters. If the recipe for these clearly existed in 1917, why has it not been employed since then?
Anyway, this is why I so firmly take the stance of “history doesn’t prove very much definitively; there simply isn’t the sample size required to be scientific”. There are lots of possible outcomes from any scenario, and no one has the special knowledge to make history proceed only in their preferred way.
That implication isn’t certain. An alternate (charitable?) reading of it is that they’re saying that a revolutionary state dominated by anarchists (or by a broad united front) would have been strong enough to never allow the monarchies to invade, and pre-empt the fascists from taking power at least in Germany.
This begs the question, though. Historically, we don’t see united fronts being all that stable and we don’t see anarchists becoming regional geopolitical heavy hitters. If the recipe for these clearly existed in 1917, why has it not been employed since then?
Anyway, this is why I so firmly take the stance of “history doesn’t prove very much definitively; there simply isn’t the sample size required to be scientific”. There are lots of possible outcomes from any scenario, and no one has the special knowledge to make history proceed only in their preferred way.