>However, Stalin actually came to power from result of fail of Trotsky with uprisings of Workers in England, and proposed his doctrine of "socialism in dedicated country".
>Stalin won and USSR become isolationist totalitaric country.
>And existance of experience of civil war in russia and becomeing it just semi-totalitaric kinda-empire not played on popularity of stalin-backed commie organisations around the world. Nazis was also not that popular honestely, but was more lucky and more active/aggresive.
If there is one particularly insidious bit of Trotskyism that seems to seep into most of the evaluations of Stalin's rule, from the Trotskyite's rendition of Stalin as a traitor of the proletariat to the most amateur of simplifications that Stalin was merely the particularly most violent of Soviet dictators, it is the one that Stalin decided to throw out the Marxist ideal of proletarian revolution.
It is important that to remember that this is a criticism of Stalin that Trotsky would pen while in exile, far away from the cold pragmatism of running a state. In this position, Trotsky was able to criticise the Soviet Union's present form by appealing to traditional Marxism. It is accurate that under what Marx wrote, the idea of a nation attempting to maintain itself with a "proletarian" regime would be an exercise that would end in failure. As the saying goes, only a worldwide revolution would overthrow a worldwide system.
There are many more venues through which one can criticize the Soviet Union from an "orthodox" Marxist perspective, though. The most damning of which, in my humble opinion, is that a socialist revolution within the Russian Empire would not happen at all. After all, the crisis of capitalism would reach first and foremost the industrialized capitalist nations of the globe. Marx put them as Britain, the United States, France and Germany. In his view, these would be the nations in which the proletarian revolution would hatch, and spread into the more backwards, less economically advanced nations.
Given this premise, the Bolsheviks found themselves in the position of needing to justify how it was that Russia was the first of nations to enter a revolutionary period. The explanations put forward were several, from Russia's unique position - how the reactionary nature of the Tsarist regime created particularly progressive revolutionary class, to Russia's early "exit" of the war via popular unrest - due to the Tsarist's regime weak hold power and even the Bolshevik party line that peasants had gained class consciousness and could be seen as allies in the revolutionary struggle.
At the outbreak of the revolution, the Bolshevik party operated with the assumption that their revolution was the first of many to come within the next few years in Europe. The end of capitalism was nigh, and now was the time to strike at its heart. From my understanding of writings of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and writings about
Kamanev, it seems that everyone was fairly on board and unanimous with this premise. This would be a mistake that would severely harm Russia in the leading up the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Lenin particularly did not see a considerable point in squabbling with Germany over territory, given that in a few years Germany too would be a proletariat state.
As the years progressed, it became increasingly clear that great European after WWI would not come along. That Russia would stand alone as the sole red power in Europe. Lenin in particular, took a fairly pragmatic position on this claiming that the Soviet Union should not predicate its existence in "fairy tales". It is worth noting that is the same man who a couple of years previously had claimed that without a revolution in Germany, the Soviet state would collapse. Lenin had no qualms with reversing policy at key issues should the situation call for it, the introduction of the NEP is a good example. Once the Kronstadt rebellion broke out, Lenin would reluctantly introduce something he greatly opposed in order to secure stability.
Trotsky was far more of an idealist than a pragmatist, but he eventually would fall in line with Lenin. After the grand fiasco that was the Soviet-Polish war, it was clear to anyone who was not blinded by the ideological kool-aid that the Red Army had no chance to following the ideal of sparking the revolutionary flame that would engulf Europe. Likewise, the falling into place of a new interwar status quo would help drive the nail into the coffin of a proletariat revolution seizing Europe. Lenin himself would write to dispel the notion that now was the time for the Soviet Union to spearhead a grand revolution across the continent.
Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was nothing more than the setting into stone of a pre-existing governmental policy. If one were to follow the purely Marxist narrative, the Soviet Union should either sacrifice its dwindling resources into one final great push against worldwide capitalism, or the Bolsheviks should step down from power and offer Russia to a capitalist liberal clique since the Marxist would simply be that the world's material conditions were not yet ripe for revolution.
Once in exile however, Trotsky, no longer bound by the cold reality of being within a position of power in the game of nations, was able to levy all sorts of accusations against Stalin. He would necromance the theory of permanent revolution that he had not touched since the Bolshevik revolution broke out, and write down how the ideal true socialist revolution would go. As Lenin wrote down the April thesis, denouncing the idea that the Bolsheviks should onto state power while giving capitalist control of the economy, Trotsky stayed quiet. Now in exile he was once again free to write as he pleased, without any check from reality. The man would go so far as to write how minor logistical mistakes prevented the Polish proletariat to rally to the red army's flag during the Soviet-Polish fiasco.
Mind you that not withstanding Stalin's position, it was still under him that the Soviet Union would reach its revolutionary apex. Before the Sino-Sopviet split one could see that this rainbow of different ideologies united under ideological orthodoxy spread from Berlin to Beijing.
On a final note, to say that it was Stalin who began pushing the Soviet Union into "semi-totalitarianism" is absurd. The Bolshevik was a totalitarian enterprise from the start, no matter how hard the final carrot of a complete communism of democracy and plenty was dangled over the Russian starving masses.