So this was literally what happened in Russia in 1917

The proletariat carried out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and it was also a socialist revolution

I heard dr wolff talk about this people trying to move from feudal societies to capitalism

The other part is that revolution cannot remain isolated, and must spread

And that socialism cannot be achieved in one country, and if it remains isolated then a bureaucracy arises

And then it will inevitably revert back to capitalism

Well, it's not difficult to see how Permanent Revolution would inevitably lead to imperialist-nation-chauvinism, the pernicious effects of which would deal a heavy blow to the international communist movement. With its focus on the essentiality and leading role of the proletariat in the capitalo-imperialist nations, it downplays the importance of anti-imperialist struggles and working-class movements in the periphery. It elevates those in the core beyond their actual significance.

Nice copy and paste

wouldn't there be wealthy nations were dissatisfaction was not high enough to ferment socialist revolution?

It is the periphery which is the heart of revolutionary fervor, and it is the hyper-exploited proletariat in the third-world that should and will lead the revolution. Not people bought out by superprofits.

History has proven Trotskys theory to be fundamentally false, and it's nothing more than a tired, luke-warm anachronism.

Not that the first world must lead the revolution but that socialism can only be achieved in industrial countries with the necessary productive forces

like I think the US now is more open to socialism now than in the 50s or 60s but I think people are not so dissatisfied they would risk their life or kill someone they care about in violent revolution for political change

@olev That simply isn't the case. Socialism was achieved in the USSR.

History has proven that every isolated revolution became a bureaucracy and every single one reverted back to capitalism, or is currently

As well as Maoist China.

Socialism was not achieved in the USSR or China, they had commodity production, therefore the law of value

@olev No, your Trotskyite talking points do not impress me. Your historiography is severely lacking in substance.

Marx said that socialism is more productive than advanced capitalism

Yet the USSR was struggling to compete

as much there were serious advances in those countries we would have to have an alternative control society that was roughly equal that existed under capitalism to see if the progress was from the rise of socialism alone

Lmao you're pulling shit out of your ass now

Marx said a number of things that didn't pan out. He wasn't some kind of infallible deity, and to treat him as such is very anti-Marxist.

So even ignoring the lack of worker control in the USSR and China

They had the law of value, they did not achieve socialism

damn I had a lovely time talking with you dudes and would love to do so in the future I just got to hit the sack I am going to volunteer and the county food bank

I really don't care if you believe the USSR was State Capitalist or "Bureaucratic Collectivist". I've heard it all, Trot. Believe me. You really should learn more about Soviet history.

you guys are awesome, interesting, and really communicate well to a someone that is lacking a lot of info on the subject

As well as the history of Maoist China.

Literally "read a book" argument

*at

As expected with fucktard tankies, they need to talk in a pretentious and condescending tone

Trotskyism has literally contributed nothing to the international communist movement. There hasn't been a single insurrection or revolutionary uprising inspired by his ideas. Not one.

@quiscalus Thanks man, appreciate the convo. I'll talk to you later. Take care.

Rate my edits pl0x

@olev I really don't care if you state your opinions, or if you join an organization that splinters into a million other organizations, but when you start making unsubstantiated claims and pawn them off as factual information just because Alan Woods or Schachtman said so, that's when I take issue.

You mean that's when you sperg out and regurgitate bullshit

It's bullshit because you suffer from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. You can't stand to entertain the idea that Lord Trotsky may have been wrong.

If you don’t know hander frieberg you don’t know politics

You haven't reasoned for how the USSR was socialist despite having the law of value

He wrote the best book on economic theory and political ruling