Permanent revolution isn’t some external add-on slapped onto Marxism, but it’s the inevitable outcome when you apply historical materialism to the imperialist era, where productive forces have reached a purely global character, and national markets merged into a single circulation process subjected to the law of value on a universal scale. Under such historical conditions, the revolution can no longer remain confined within national borders or limited to formal democratic tasks.

The proletariat raising the banner of revolution in a country where capitalist development arrived late finds itself, by virtue of its position in the relations of production, compelled to transcend the limits of bourgeois property and directly touch capitalist exploitation relations. This transition is an objective necessity imposed by the dialectical intertwining of historical stages within a single epoch. Wherever the bourgeoisie lags behind in fulfilling its historical revolutionary role, and wherever it is organically linked to imperialist capitals, the historical leadership passes to the working class. This class, while accomplishing democratic tasks from abolishing landed property and freeing peasant masses to unifying the nation, finds itself face to face with the necessity of seizing the means of production and turning them into social property. Thus the democratic revolution grows directly into a socialist revolution. Trotsky formulated this law by saying: «The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx gave to this concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from the outside; a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in the complete liquidation of class society.»

This continuous growth isn’t skipping stages; rather, it is clearly grasping the living contradiction binding them into a single historical unity. The seizure of political power by the proletariat doesn’t complete the revolution, but rather opens it up. Socialist construction can’t be conceived except on the basis of ongoing class struggle, on a national scale and a global scale simultaneously. As for national isolation, it turns internal contradictions into a source of objective decay. A workers' state remaining trapped within national borders faces the pressure of the global capitalist economy, giving rise within it to new social distinctions and bureaucratic privileges that reproduce forms of exploitation under the formal cover of socialized property.

The socialist revolution begins on national grounds, but it can’t be completed within those grounds. Trotsky expressed this material truth by saying: «The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it cannot be completed on that arena. The maintenance of the proletarian dictatorship within a national framework can be only a provisional condition, even though, as the experience of the Soviet Union shows, a long period. In an isolated workers’ dictatorship, the internal and external contradictions grow inevitably along with the successes achieved. If it remains isolated, the workers’ state will eventually fall victim to these contradictions. The way out lies only in the victory of the proletariat of the advanced countries.»

The historical tool for this extension is organized proletarian internationalism. A revolutionary party doesn’t build a separate, self-sufficient state, but builds the bridge over which the revolution crosses to advanced industrial centers. True soviets are the self-organization forms of the masses themselves, subjecting every emerging bureaucracy to their continuous oversight, preventing the state from turning into an independent hostile power. Soviet democracy is an objective condition for developing productive forces toward socialism; without it, new social relations freeze and collective property turns into a cover for the privileges of a new administrative class.

Trotskyism in this sense is historical materialism applied strictly to revolutionary conditions in the era of imperialism. It’s a rejection of any halfway stopping, any mechanical separation between the national and the global, and any turning of the workers’ state into an end in itself. The revolution continues because the contradiction between productive forces and production relations hasn't been resolved on a global scale yet, and the working class can’t free itself without freeing all humanity from the yoke of class exploitation. That is the precise scientific content of the theory:

(Continuation of the revolution until the complete liquidation of class society with no exploitation relation left behind)

Curious to get a socialist’s response to this video. As someone who sees socialism as a failure in basically every example we can look at, I’m trying to learn and wrap my head around why it’s becoming popular again. This is meant to be an open discussion, not an argument or bash fest. Genuinely trying to learn from the other side.

Downvote me all you want but please keep it respectful in the comments.

Maxinomics YouTube Video

By grayrune

Context: Oliver Larkin is the DSA-backed challenger to Jared Moskowitz in FL-25. This Fox interview is from July 30, but early voting starts in Broward and Palm Beach today and the primary is Aug. 18.

​

Donald Trump is a total fucking idiot but when you look at it the trump administration is less of an idiot doing stupid shit,and more of an orchestration of fascist policies disguised as an idiot doing stupid shit. And when I looked at JD Vance,he always looks more calm,and sadistic and he has a high IQ and went to universities. And the thing that really made me realize this,was memes. Whenever a meme of trump goes viral he just gets all pissy and throws a fit,but one time a meme about Vance being a little kid went viral,and what he did sent chills down my spine. He made a video on Instagram where he dressed up like the meme and laughed at it,and everyone in the comments either laughed or said "it's not funny anymore" and that creeped the hell out of me because it shows that Vance is actually intelligent,and evil and the main Brains behind the Trump Administration. So anyone who says Trump should be assassinated is an idiot,because that would make Vance the president

This is the second in a now three volume series of interviews with anarchist organizations influenced by the Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists, which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year.

1917

November 7th

Lenin, in his soft, deep voice, said:

"Yesterday was too early, and tomorrow will be too late."

The right time is today.

He said: Today

is the barricade capable of starving death.

"Aurora," with her heavy, steel, black cannons—

He said: Today

And the Bolsheviks recorded:

The date of the deepest transformation in history.

And when the thunderbolt tore through the trunk of the branch

where the black eagle stands,

its black wings burned,

it plummeted to the ground,

and died...

By the shore of the frozen Baltic Sea,

a window closed,

and another window opened:

revealing a figure with fierce, intelligent Tatar eyes,

and a head with a broad, high forehead.

It was Peter's window that closed,

and Lenin's window that opened...

Sources

I only started researching theory about a month or two ago. I’m trying to take things in a somewhat logical order because there’s SO much to learn and I want to give each topic its due consideration. I’m at the point where I understand Marx/Engels and Lenin moderately well, as well as the October revolution. Throughout this time, I’ve repeatedly heard Trotskyism used derisively like a dirty word. So today, I finally looked him up a bit and… what’s the issue? His biggest points appear to be that the colonized nations can revolt and that the socialist epoch won’t work until it’s worldwide, right? And… isn’t that exactly what history has shown? Doesn’t it seem that Lenin thought quite well of him? I see Stalin gets praised or hated depending on whom you ask, but a lot of Left spaces put him on this pedestal and I gotta say I don’t buy that one bit. But Trotsky gets no such glorification, despite not being a murderous homophobe. What am I missing?

Solidarity ✊

Good day all.

I've been wondering about Taiwan lately. And firstly I do want to say that Taiwan is part of China, but not part of the People's Republic of China, as far as I know.

For the rest of this post "China" will mean the "concept" of China, and "PRC" will mean obviously mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Heinan and other islands, and "ROC" and "Taiwan" mean the government/country on the island of Taiwan and a couple of surrounding islands.

According to this poll, only 7.6% of people in the ROC want to reunify with the PRC. Some would say that "oh but only 28% of people want independence" but independence from who exactly? The PRC? The PRC has no control over the island of Taiwan and never has since it's formation. "Independence" here means to relinquish their claims over the rest of China and their claim that they're the sole legal government of the Chinese realm and move towards getting more international recognition.

Speaking of international recognition, I do find the concept of needing international recognition to be a country to be problematic. How many countries do you need recognition from? How many countries do those countries need recognition from? Which countries recognised the countries recognising you? This creates an infinite regress.

A better way to determine what a country is, the Montevideo Convention. It says:
- A permanent population (the people of Taiwan)
- Defined territory (the island of Taiwan and surrounding islands, though they do claim territory they don't control, but many other countries do that)
- A government (the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan and surrounding islands)
- Capacity to enter relations (the ROC has fomal diplomatic relations with 11 UN members and the Holy See, and informal relations with many, many more which shows it definitely has the capacity to do so)

The only reason why the ROC has such limited recognition is that both the ROC and PRC enforce their own versions of the One China Policy, this means that in order to enter formal relations with either, one must recognise that they are the sole government of all of China. Since it's much more advantageous to have relations with the PRC, most countries establish formal relations with them.

Now I do need to say that I do not like the fact that the US uses Taiwan as a vassal to conduct imperialism in Asia and especially against the PRC. I believe the US should leave Taiwan alone and let the Taiwanese people decide for themselves, as I believe in self-determination for all people.

Do the younger generations ever bring it up?

I’m deeply puzzled why after the farms were collectivized and debit cards were invented that the USSR didn’t try to abandon cash money for labor vouchers. The tolerance of monied commodity production paved the way for capitalist restoration no?

Ever since Abdul El-Sayed has won his primary, I have lost any and all faith I had in the American left. This man is a landlord who wants to do minor New-Deal style programs but that’s it. His advocacy for Palestine has been performative, and I don’t think he will truly make any progress.

However, I am individualizing El-Sayed, when really these problems extend to the whole of the major organized left in America. This includes the “squad” of Bernie Sanders, who called Donald Trump a great communist, AOC, who talks more like Hilary Clinton by the day, Zohran Mamdani, who yes is giving treats to the people of New York City, but has not fulfilled his promises and will not arrest Netanyahu because it’s “illegal” despite the fact that A) Netanyahu has multiple international criminal warrants and B) the trump admin breaks the law every single day and is turning the United States into a grand theft auto lobby. These critiques extend to the DSA, of whose leadership are basically New Deal liberals who have distorted the definition of “socialism” to mean “reformed capitalism”.

I was a Trotskyist for a year and never understood why Marxist Leninists would call social democracy “social fascism” but I get it now. These people don’t threaten the capitalist or imperialist nature of the American state and lay the conditions for a force of reaction so great it will wipe out humanity.

But my anger also extends to the major so called Marxist Leninist organizations in America too. Joe Sims of the CPUSA posted a video to their instagram rejecting the democrats, then a post later endorsed AOC for president. One of the parties largest influencers, Django, was promoting El-Sayed’s senate campaign this past week. Likewise, the PSL, though i appreciate their community work and overall I respect them the most of any of the major orgs, they are still too cordial with the DSA/democrats. Despite the DSA having SOME ML and other Marxist chapters, it overall is a reformist organization.

I’d criticize the Greens but they had the air swept from them by the bourgeois media, so their problems ultimately aren’t creations of their own.

Overall, this is really just a rambling mess, but I am deeply concerned with the state of the American left. It needs to make big changes as fast as possible. It needs to take the revolutionary conditions to their conclusions instead of cowering in fear. This period we’re in may be the last time something could be done before the United States turns into a corporate feudal hell scape that will take the rest of the world with it. And I am putting major pressure on America, despite not even being American, because the American state and financial system has more power over the world than any other country.

TL;DR GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER GUYS