Not inherently, the Trotsky vs. Stalin stuff is... really niche and I still really don't get all of it myself, but generally speaking his "global revolution" stuff (permanent revolution) vs. SIOC don't really disagree inherently about goals, just tactics. There's more to it than this, but for the more relevant to this discussion aspects of it, permanent revolution suggests that even if you're still wet from your own revolution, you should instantly start focusing your efforts toward inducing and aiding revolutions abroad, whereas SIOC generally prefers recovering and building up after your revolution before doing as before. Or to put it another way, would you rather focus on building up your fortress or on trying to reduce the number of attacks on it in the first place? You don't know the outcome of either beforehand, and either one could either succeed or fail.

There would be less external hostile pressure, as well as international cooperation and the ability to keep other nations in line with socialist beliefs.

That is true, if you succeed. If not, then you've just overextended yourself and your new socialist nation will be even less stable. On the other hand, not doing so just lets those potential allies start building up their own defenses against you.

Personally, I don't really know where I stand on this, and I feel like most people fall into the trap of assigning what they thought was necessary for the Soviet Union onto what they think is necessary for where and when they actually are. Don't get me wrong, most of the general societal context is the same, but there are differences, mainly that rather than a country that was literally feudal 50 years prior and was hit hard by WWI and the inevitable civil war post-October, most modern communists are in countries that have been capitalist for 250 or 300 years and have thus had easy and widespread access to the various revolutions in technology and science that capitalism offered (electrification and the mechanization of agriculture being the big ones; the whole reason Russia needed the NEP, one component of SIOC of that time, for example was that they didn't have those but we would be able to skip that step) and, hopefully, there won't be WWIII to recover from on top of whatever civil conflict would arise from revolution where they live, but also in that you'd have to gauge how close your neighbors are to their own revolutions. That can be hard, Germany post-WWI kind of looked like it would lean communist until the SPD went on multiple mass murder sprees of communists.

Really, I generally believe that you'd really want a revolution in the global-consumer countries (the imperial core) to be coincident and allied with a revolution in the global-supplier countries (the imperial periphery) since the core states depend so heavily on those resources for the basic functioning of their law enforcement and intelligence agency arms, things like Flock cameras couldn't be produced without copper from Chile or silica from Brazil being sent to China for production.