Tfw the Tiananmen Square were real socialists and not liberals

I've got a tankie buddy who once shared an article suggesting that Tianmen Square was fabricated by the Dutch as some sort of elaborate revenge for the Chinese having revoked their trade concessions or something.

It's ridiculously delusional.

This gave me a hearty kek

What
I had to look this up to make sure you weren't putting me on. And, to be honest, I almost wish you were. That's insane.
It's like how every 9th grade English teacher in the nation teaches George Orwell as an anti-communist, or the civil rights movement as a triumph of nonviolence and the "market of ideas."

Jesus christ, that's like that deluded National Review article trying to say that MLK was actually a conservative because his pants weren't saggy or something.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE HE COULD'VE SAVED US

youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

Not likely. Trotsky was far from unfamiliar with crushing working class insurrections against capital that deviated from his line. Also, he was theoretically very poor.

theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauvé-jean-barrot-1972

Oh yea. nobody joins the IWW and supports Eugene Debs to appear cool tbh. But it is a growing symptoms of liberals' behavior to erase or ignore the socialistic elements of their heroes to pretend that they are liberals

But that's completely wrong

Do you agree with his theory of permanent revolution?

Explain why that is and/or address the problems you have with the text I posted.

Yes, but ultimately not if coupled with what Trotsky's idea of socialism is (a workers' state; where there the working class is neither in control nor even made a revolution), but rather in the way Marx used it long before him, see: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm, which is, needless to say, in conjunction with a proper understanding of what socialism/communism is.

Another proper read: en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm.

Love this song, hate that it has to exist.

He also semi-jokingly applied for honorary citizenship in the PRC on account of exemplary shilling and called the AIIB anti-capitalist.

fun fella tho

One of the leaders of the protests went on to become a fucking investment banker.
The only mistake the government made was not killing more counter-revolutionary leaders.

nigga what

The whole point of permanent revolution is that the proletariat of those nations unable to carry out their own bourgeois liberal democratic revolutions owing to the contradictions between different local sections of the bourgeoisie derives from its contradiction with international capital rather than local, and that their political success or failure depends on the extent to which they recognize capitalism as an international system and deal with it as such. (This has an appropriate generalization - truly the whole proletariat's revolutionary significance is tied to the international bourgeoisie, but there's simply no obvious way for the proles of the first world to cast anti-capitalism in the light of "national liberation.") This was the whole basis for "bypassing" the capitalist phase of development, not any vague insistence that all forms of nominal "workers' control" were indeed socialism.
Establishing some local administrative organ ostensibly controlled by the workers, cordoning it off from the world, and presiding over something perpetually embedded in a still-contradictory global system while endlessly proclaiming Real Socialism to be just around the corner was the Stalinist position. It's also a clear-cut repudiation of permanent revolution.
We get more into the issue of tactics here, and the question of what communists should do after capturing some organ of production within a broader capitalist context. Does the communist who inherits a majority stake in some company immediately liquidate it and divide the assets among the workers? Increase wages and sustain a competitive disadvantage? That amounts to charity and does nothing to solve the actual material conditions underlying the plight of labor. So the question becomes one of how these assets are to be used in the pursuit of revolution, if at all. The workers' state allows efficient aggregation of resources and socialization of labor towards political ends on the international scale, and in this sense there's something to be said about discipline. The "intermediate stage" is not some ad hoc exception tacked on to Marxism, but a description of the real conquest of state power by the workers in relation to the real tasks of the (international) proletariat.

(cont.)
I don't really see personal power politics as having an obvious relationship to theory. Seems a dishonest conflation of one meaning of "opportunism" with the other.
The same baseless statements you've made, and I haven't seen supported.
He didn't set out to independently reinvent the wheel or make some flashy, radical departure from Marxism, as the Frankfurt School, among others, had, but permanent revolution is a crucial part of Marxist orthodoxy woefully underappreciated in both his time and after it. He produced a mountain of theoretical writings and it permeates throughout his historical works and autobiography. This sort of claim almost certainly belies an unfamiliarity with his work.
Relevance? He had some role in reviving the concept from Marx, as did Trotsky, who then expounded on it at length. Then the concept found its way into the foundations of the Bolshevik program and became central to their rejection of Menshevism and the two-stage revolution. This essay seems to be implying that, as it's not his own unprecedented, fully novel work, he's guilty of some sort of pervasive theoretical paucity, and that therefore his theory is wrong.

Honestly, this whole essay is mystifying

LeftCom btfo?

lmfao at this

pfffft your friend should take his meds

tanks have the best schizophrenia

China recently had a lot of successful worker strikes throughout the country.
The West didn't bank on it, because they were also socialist, so unlike Tibetan or Uigurian protests they kept quiet on this one.

The results range from better payments and symbolic shit like Communist Party officials being forced to call each other "Comrade" again.

faggot

Plot twist: John Nash actually wasn't schizophrenic, there really was a tankie conspiracy to wear red ties and stalk him so he couldn't crack the secret soviet code all along, and tanks only seem unhinged because they've already seen it all, maaan.

but bordiga-san, the protesters got out of their armchairs! you can't support that, it's against your moral code!!!!!!!!

Trotsky was a rat and you dont need to be a Stalinist to know this

He was theoretically trash and lead Krondstadt I mean pls