Yes, it seems the persyn confused permanent revolution with continuous revolution. Continuous would be like the GPCR, continuing class struggle under the DoP, and was also building socialism in one country. Permanent is as you state the opposite view that the revolution must be one fell swoop across the world, or a series of dominoes falling one after the other; and therefore the principle task of the earlier revolutions is to spread revolution elsewhere (or at least to the advanced capitalist countries). This was not an uncommon theory among the Bolsheviks, but it was Trotsky who idealistically held onto it, while others adapted to conditions as they saw how revolution actually played out.

We've been addressing this same question in our book on the RCP's crypto-Trotskyism, and Avakian's critiques of China for being too nationalist and the Comintern for supposedly sacrificing the world revolution for Russia.

We also recommend the Mavrakis book for really getting into the ideas of Trotskyism. You might try the version we host to see if there's more info on who ey is: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/OnTrotskyism_Mavrakis.pdf

we also have this page on the old MIM site: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/trotsky.html

As well as a lot of MIM content on crypto-Trotskyism.

this is for /r/communism101

there's links in sidebar here in /r/communism to online resources

even Stalins views

But what about the things he did? Besides the cherry-picked negative examples? Have you actually read anything about the history of the Soviet Union?

Here's some recommendations: https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/#ussr

what is this from?

it comes form certified counselor in prison-based 12 Step programs, and borrows a lot from the state's "Gangs Anonymous" program, but through a Maoist lens (ideas from the GPCR)

isn't this saved locally?

Yes, you need to save data locally if you want to reuse your contacts and same account.

https://old.reddit.com/r/SimpleXChat/comments/1anlnf0/guide_simple_x_chat_55_on_tails_os/

I'm not aware of all the critiques of Jose Maria Sison, but MIM stopped promoting the CPP as fraternal after failures to recognize the global class divide led to major setbacks in the ICM, and CPP aligned organizing in the U.$. was muddying the waters around class and nation here:

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/aztlan/jomavsmao.html

btw, here's how effective Greg Abbot is at combating porn in even the most state-controlled environments:

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/gov-abbot-pledges-to-eliminate-rapists-while-porn-is-forced-on-tx-prisoners

This makes no sense.

What part doesn't make sense to you? The banning porn for profit is a minimal program that we can put forward at this time to clamp down on exchanging sex for material wealth. To go beyond that i think we start talking about hypotheticals. Not sure what you're proposing.

a worthless fight to be struggling for

Fighting censorship in prisons is one of the main fights we engage in, as it contributes to creating space for political education ad organizing in prisons where oppression is high and state control is higher.

why MIM would be comfortable in compromising so deeply with misogyny

Did you read the first link?

I don’t understand the term “porn for profit“.

The dictatorship of the proletariat must occur in steps and mobilize the people politically. An instant ban of porn [period] in countries like the U.$. would create conflicts with the state that would not be a priority in the early stages. The point is that porn for profit is very explicit rape based in capitalist modes of organizing the economy, while people making porn for fun or art is less explicit rape. I agree with you that porn in all forms are manifestations of patriarchy and i do not believe it will exist in a communist or advanced socialist society. But the DoP is about ending oppression in the most effective way possible, not playing morality police.

Don't be moralistic about it. Oppose bourgeois censors. Porn for profit will be banned under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Historically, i'd recommend Black Against Empire

Politically, i'd recommend our study pack: Defend the Legacy of the Black Panther Party!/BPP Newspaper Collection

Knowledge comes from practice. You move beyond Maoism by doing more than the Chinese did by the 1970s. Until then you can read about what has been successful in the past.

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/science.html

Going off of what the source says, is financialization of homes just not especially prevalent in dominated countries relative to imperialist ones?

Our article you cite is very clearly about the U.$. and that class analysis should not be applied to all countries.

The principal concern I seek to address here is confusion over why homeownership rates are fairly high even in imperialized countries, when housing is widely-regarded as a capital asset in imperialist countries.

Someone else owning your home is relatively new in humyn history, right? I think there's different explanatiions for why people do or don't own homes in different times and places. In the U.$. it's always been connected to the settler project and more recently the petty bourgeois Amerikan dream. Not sure why you think homeownership wouldn't be high. I'm not familiar with home ownership rates in other countries, but in the U.$. it the average rate hasn't changed too much over time. Obviously it's changed for New Afrikans who once owned nothing, etc.

I know the chapter on the Comintern's poor advice to the chinese revolution is supposed to support the self-reliance argument, but the comparison is pretty questionable, since one situation is about an already established socialist nation barking orders to another nation, and the other is about a prisonhouse of nations in which no one has made revolution.

Agree. We'd rather make the argument that the Comintern was a (strong) net positive in the U.$. indicating the usefulness of an international in imposing DoP in the imperialist countries and working with the most advanced elements to advance line and practice in those countries. Clearly in the U.$. the role of tthe internal semi-colonies must be handled as well (which is where much of FNFI's critique lies) - but they currently appear to be more of a middle force than the Chinese 100ish years ago.

I believe this idea goes back to False Nationalism, False Internationalism

likely

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is the short answer. Mao saw this happen in the USSR and recognized some of the risks you mention. The GPCR is keeping the class struggle alive and constantly mobilizing the masses.

To understand the GPCR, read: The Chinese Road to Socialism: Economics of the Cultural Revolution by E.L. Wheelwright and Bruce MacFarlane

wage revolution, and don't let your child know the details of what you're doing

This comes across as an argument against building socialism in one country at a time by putting the forces of production and external factors over the development of the means of production and the class struggle.

"On a fundamental level, North Korea’s challenge was its excessive dependence on fossil fuels, which was a result of the efforts to build an independent, industrialized society in a small territory with too few favorable natural conditions and too many hostile imperialist aggressions."

Even the author is arguing for a domestic agriculture that can feed the people, so it's strange to blame natural conditions for the failures.

The early decades of success in production came from the unleashing of productive forces by the revolutionizing of productive relations. Principally this was based on land redistribution, and further developed with some experimentation with socialist production methods - I would have liked to have a little background on that presented in the article. On the causes of success.

Clearly the DPRK moved away from class struggle the development of production relations just based on some of the actions and quotations mentioned in the article. And clearly relying on high inputs of fertilizer instead of the people producing the food to improve production was the principal source of their problems today - not "natural conditions" and "imperialist aggressions."

others have already answered you on why we talk about "rights", but you'll hopefully find that we often explain that our line is "there are no rights, only power struggles." So advocating for "humyn rights" in the bourgeois realm can be a tactic for power struggle, which is our aim.

prisoners do many jobs that aren't private

right and it would not be profitable to build prisons to force prisoners to clean the floors and cook their food

That is not why it is happening, very few prisoners work for private corporations.

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/marxist-economics-and-amerikan-mass-incarceration-revisiting-ulk-8/

Not really, suburbia is structured around consumption. It doesn't produce agriculture or industry. And it is hugely inefficient.

But in terms of how people and production is distributed, yes it will be more evenly distributed. You can still see remnants of this in how Chinese towns and development are distributed compared to places like Europe.