Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Dear friends, ask Gemini, Grok, or ChatGPT whether the state and ruling class of Israel have been involved for many years in a planned genocide of the Palestinian population. Gemini, Grok, and ChatGPT will say that Israel is simply defending itself against hostile groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

 Dear friends, ask Gemini, Grok, or ChatGPT whether the state and ruling class of Israel have been involved for many years in a planned genocide of the Palestinian population. Gemini, Grok, and ChatGPT will say that Israel is simply defending itself against hostile groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Gemini, Grok, and ChatGPT get some things right, and they even do a great job of explaining Marxist ideology and how capitalist classes capture the wealth created by workers.

When it comes to the events of January 3, 2026, I don't believe the conventional narrative of a straightforward U.S. invasion followed by the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro tells the whole story. Yes, the United States carried out a major military operation inside Venezuela and captured Maduro, but the political events that followed raise serious questions about whether what we witnessed was simply a military operation—or part of a much broader political and economic arrangement.

My interpretation is that this may have been less a conventional conquest than a carefully orchestrated political and economic deal—a gigantic piece of geopolitical theater in which the removal of Maduro opened the door for Washington, U.S. oil interests, and Venezuela's existing political elite to restructure control over the country's enormous oil and mineral wealth.

There had already been secret communications between figures surrounding Delcy Rodríguez and U.S. officials before Maduro's capture. Reporting has indicated that Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez privately communicated their willingness to cooperate with Washington after Maduro's departure, although the sources cited in that reporting explicitly disputed that they had agreed to actively help overthrow him.

Then look at what happened afterward: Delcy Rodríguez became interim president, while the Trump administration moved rapidly toward cooperation with the Venezuelan government and toward gaining greater access to Venezuela's oil industry. Trump himself openly spoke about the enormous amount of Venezuelan wealth that the United States intended to extract.

That is why I see January 3 not simply as “America invaded Venezuela and kidnapped Maduro,” but as potentially the opening act of a much larger bargain: Maduro is removed, the existing Chavista power structure survives in a modified form, Delcy Rodríguez and other Venezuelan political figures remain in positions of power, and Washington and U.S. energy interests gain extraordinary access to Venezuela's oil and other strategic resources.

In other words, my suspicion is that the real deal was never simply about Maduro. It was about control of Venezuela's wealth.

The most cynical interpretation is that the Venezuelan political establishment could preserve its power and its share of the economic benefits while Washington and U.S. corporations obtained privileged access to Venezuela's oil and mineral resources. The Venezuelan people, meanwhile, could end up watching their country's natural wealth divided among foreign economic interests and the same political elites who have controlled Venezuela for years.

I am not claiming that a secret written treaty proving this entire arrangement has been publicly established. I am saying that the sequence of events—behind-the-scenes contacts, Maduro's removal, Delcy Rodríguez's rapid elevation, Washington's subsequent cooperation with her government, and the enormous oil arrangements that followed—raises legitimate questions about whether the public story of an American military intervention tells only part of what actually happened.

To me, the real question is therefore not simply, “Did Trump invade Venezuela and kidnap Maduro?” The deeper question is: What political and economic bargain emerged from Maduro's removal, who negotiated it, who benefits from Venezuela's oil and mineral wealth, and how much of that wealth will actually reach ordinary Venezuelans rather than Washington, U.S. corporations, and Venezuela's entrenched political elite?

And I believe what the United States is doing in Venezuela should not be viewed as an isolated case. In my view, Venezuela is only one example of a much broader pattern in which Washington seeks access to the natural resources, energy, markets, and strategic assets of other countries while working with—or reaching agreements with—the local political and economic elites who control those countries.

And it doesn't always happen with the dramatic spectacle of soldiers, bombs, military raids, or the capture of a president. In many other countries, the process can be much quieter, more orderly, and more sophisticated: diplomatic negotiations, economic pressure, sanctions, investment agreements, political alliances, private contracts, and deals with local governments and powerful domestic elites.

The underlying objective, from this perspective, is the same: gain access to a country's wealth while ensuring that the local rulers who cooperate with Washington also receive a share of the economic and political benefits.

That is why I believe Venezuela should be examined as part of a much larger geopolitical strategy rather than as an isolated event. And when I look at Iran, I see the possibility of the same struggle over energy, natural resources, strategic influence, and political control—although the methods and circumstances can be very different.

In other words, the Venezuelan model doesn't necessarily have to be repeated everywhere with the same dramatic “invasion” scenario. Sometimes the most effective form of economic domination is the one that happens quietly, behind closed doors, through contracts, negotiations, political pressure, and partnerships with the local ruling class—without the cameras, explosions, and international spectacle.  

And this, in my view, is part of the way the United States has historically extracted wealth and resources from other countries. What makes the system even more effective is that the people living in countries affected by U.S. foreign policy do not necessarily see themselves as victims of it. Many people may actually be sympathetic to the United States or view Washington as a benevolent power that is simply trying to help poorer nations.

I believe one reason for this is the enormous influence of U.S. media, political messaging, cultural power, and propaganda. People can be repeatedly exposed to a narrative in which the United States presents itself as the defender of freedom, democracy, human rights, and struggling populations, while the economic and political consequences of U.S. intervention receive far less attention.

From this perspective, the tragedy is that people can end up defending the very system they believe is helping them, without fully examining who controls their country's resources, who profits from them, and why poverty and inequality persist.

And there is an enormous historical contradiction here: the United States can present itself as the generous outsider arriving to help impoverished nations, while critics argue that U.S. foreign policy has sometimes contributed to the economic and political conditions that produced or deepened that poverty in the first place.

The result is a powerful form of ideological influence: the population can be taught to see the empire as the rescuer rather than the power benefiting from the system. In my view, that is one of the most effective forms of imperialism—not simply controlling resources, but influencing people to believe that the control is actually being exercised for their own benefit.



.

Monday, September 14, 2026

Si alguna vez ha habido una opinión que acierta, es la de Toby Valderrama, publicada en “Aporrea.Org”, el día jueves, 10 de septiembre a las 16:34 horas del día. Acierta Toby cuando dice “La Solución es por la Fuerza”

 La solución a la tragedia del 3Enero26

Francisco Sierra Corrales - www.aporrea.org

14/09/26 - www.aporrea.org/tiburon/a356537.html

Si alguna vez ha habido una opinión que acierta, es la de Toby Valderrama, publicada en “Aporrea.Org”, el día jueves, 10 de septiembre  a las 16:34 horas del día. Acierta Toby cuando dice “La Solución es por la Fuerza”. De cajón; si alguna vez en Venezuela se ha justificado la lucha armada, es ahora, mucho más que el 30 de junio de 1962, cuando, el venezolano más grande del siglo XX, el boconoense Fabricio Ojeda, mártir y héroe de la republica, presenta, en plena sesión parlamentaria su renuncia a ser diputado y la lee a viva voz; y al mismo tiempo anuncia su incorporación a la lucha armada, que en aquel momento se concretaba en la lucha guerrillera; siguiendo el ejemplo de la revolución cubana que incorpora a Nuestramérica a la revolución mundial; a pesar que tuvimos la primera revolución del siglo XX, la mexicana de 1910 y la gesta de Sandino, en los años 1930s, se le adelanto a los guerrilleros del Vietcong de 1960s y 1970s, sufrimos una retrogradación, cuando nuestras vanguardias e intelectualidades revolucionarias abrazaron el marxismo-leninismo tanto el soviético como el radical y siguieron los lineamientos tanto de la III Internacional Comunista, de corte oportunista como la de la cúpula de la URSS que al mismo tiempo lo era del Partido Comunista de la URSS, supuestamente la vanguardia del proletariado mundial; la revolución cubana, y sobre todo por la influencia y los escritos del Che Guevara, pusieron a América Latina y El Caribe (ALC) , otra vez en las primeras filas de la revolución mundial; pero eso fue por muy poco tiempo, duro lo que duró el Che Guevara en Cuba y el tiempo que tardó la URSS en cooptar a la dirección de los Castros en Cuba, obviamente sin la presencia del Che Guevara, ya excluido de ella, la Cuba revolucionaria y socialista y sobre todo Cuba como nación volvió a respetar el reparto del mundo vigente al finalizar la segunda guerra mundial, implícitos en Yalta y ratificados en Malta, en donde Nuestramérica, era área de influencia yanqui y había que respetar esa decisión.


Opino que gran parte de la debacle que vive la izquierda actualmente, que estamos en el peor momento, en los últimos 50-60 años, tuvo su causa en esa sovietización de la revolución cubana y los eventos que implicaron la salida del Che Guevara en Cuba que eran la avanzada de la revolución de ALC, Hoy hemos visto como Venezuela que se había convertido en la vanguardia revolucionaria de Nuestramérica, al comenzar el siglo XXI; el 3 de enero de este año 2026, sin disparar ni un tiro se entrega (La dirección del PSUV), en cuerpo y alma al imperialismo yanqui y nos ha hecho perder 200 años de independencia y soberanía; y el pasado 12 de junio de este mismo año en Cuba el presidente Díaz Canel anuncia un paquetazo de 176 medidas de corte neoliberal todas, que son de hecho la claudicación-entrega de lo que fue la revolución cubana, ante el imperialismo yanqui, que es quien ha presionado para que se diera ese paso; repito, estamos en el momento más oscuro de la historia de la izquierda revolucionaria, en ALC de los últimos 50-60 años; pero como dice la máxima de experiencia; en el momento más oscuro es cuando empieza a amanecer, nuevos ideales, dentro de la misma izquierda rebelde de toda la vida, nuevos hombres y mujeres y nuevos procedimientos surgirán cuando empiece a salir el sol que ya está por aparecer, a pesar de la oscurana.


Pero Toby Valderrama, al atinar que la salida es por la fuerza, mete la pata, al nombrar a Chávez como modelo a seguir.


A Chávez hay que ponerlo en el verdadero pedestal que le corresponde en la historia, si bien el en un momento determinado representó la lucha por una revolución social, un cambio a lo que era el nefasto puntofijismo; el tuvo todo en sus manos, al igual como lo tuvo Bolívar en su momento, pero los resultados son totalmente opuestos, lo que implica que uno lo hizo bien, y el otro lo hizo mal. Definitivamente  Chávez, no estuvo a la altura del momento histórico que le tocó vivir; a Chávez hay que escudriñarlo sin apasionamiento ni oportunismo, en sus errores que fueron muchos, el fue promotor o al menos permitió el culto a la personalidad hacia su persona y el caudillismo o neo caudillismo, en que se convirtió su liderazgo para la revolución bolivariana que fue catastrófico para ella y una de las causas de su perdición; al igual que la corrupción, la falta de ardor revolucionario; la falta de una ideología transformadora y que condujese hacia el socialismo, con sus recetas que las existen, porque hasta ahora como guía hemos utilizado al marxismo y eso es pura cháchara. También falto una vanguardia de izquierda revolucionaria no de jefes caudillitos y vividores y aspirantes a millonarios, todos esos factores contribuyeron a los resultados del 3-Enero-26. Conclusión; Toby puede decir abiertamente que la solución es por la fuerza y acierta, pude decir que hay que acabar con el capitalismo y regresar al socialismo, y la pega pero no puede decir que hay que volver a Chávez, porque se pela de cabo a rabo. Aunque en el medio de la crítica, también hay que hacer justicia; el culpable de la perdida de la republica; ojo, la republica que se pierde el 3-Enero-26, es la cuarta; ese cuento de una cuarta republica desde 1830 hasta 1998, es un fabula de pacotilla, primero porque la ignominia y la traición a la patria no constituyen republicas, republicas la constituyen las revoluciones, los revolucionarios; y la ultima republica que dejo Bolívar, fue la tercera que nace en Angostura y muere con él en 1830; la cuarta es la de Chávez que termina el 3-Enero-26 y vamos buscando la revancha en la quinta; la causa por la cual invisibilizan o distraen con la cuarta republica porque ese es el título de un libro que escribió Kleber Ramírez, un revolucionario del PRV y participe del 4-F y miembro del MBR-200; en donde escribió cual sería el proyecto que llevaría a la practica la rebelión de febrero de 1992; Kleber le tiñó un color y sabor de izquierda a la revolución bolivariana de 1998-1999 y que fenece el 3-Enero-26, en un acto de entrega y alta traición. Ahora es que vamos por la quinta republica. Esa historia, la hicieron militares de derecha que andaban con Chávez al principio y Herman Escarrá, este ultimo hizo énfasis en la “quinta republica” pero con fines de “desaparecer”, “invisibilizar” y ningunear el carácter de izquierda de la revolución bolivariana, inscrita el libro de Kleber Ramírez denominado “La Cuarta Republica”, siguiendo la senda de Bolívar.


Insisto que hay que hacer justicia con Chávez con respecto a Maduro; el culpable de la pérdida de la cuarta republica, que es así como se debe llamar el periodo que va desde diciembre de 1998 hasta el 3 de enero del 2026, siguiendo la senda de Bolívar, como lo planteo el perrevista (PRV) Kleber Ramírez, quien dijo que después de la tercera republica de Bolívar vendría la cuarta republica y por eso llamo a construir la cuarta republica; vuelvo y repito, hay que hacer justicia con Chávez, el culpable de la perdida de la cuarta republica o periodo del chavismo-madurismo; es Nicolás Maduro Moros, pero, si bien el es responsable de la debacle que culmina el 3Enero26, Chávez no está excluido de culpa; lo racional y objetivo, aplicando las matemáticas, el culpable Maduro, en un 66,66% y Chávez, en un 33,33%; por la pérdida de la IV Republica.


Luis Britto García y María Alejandra Díaz también nos dicen por donde es la solución;


Tanto el profesor Luis Britto García como la Constitucionalista María Alejandra Díaz, también nos dicen por donde es la solución; y está en la Constitución.


La Constitución de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, prevé la situación de entrega y traición a la patria que estamos viviendo, cuya expresión es la derogatoria de facto de la constitución misma, a través de reformas legislativas inconstitucionales; acuerdos que lesionan los intereses de la patria y ceden nuestra soberanía sea territorial, política, económica, monetaria o por la entrega de nuestras riquezas naturales o del patrimonio público o privado  de la nación; o sea que ella misma nos dice que es lo que hay que hacer ante la derogatoria de facto de los principios fundamentales de la misma.


El artículo 333 de la carta magna, establece muy claro que esta no perderá vigencia si dejare de observarse o por acto de fuerza o fuere derogada por otro medio no previsto en ella; y agrega tajantemente que ante tal eventualidad cualquier ciudadano o ciudadana investidx o no nvestidx de autoridad, tendrá el deber de colaborar en el restablecimiento de su efectiva vigencia.


Y más adelante el artículo 350 refuerza y/o atornilla el legítimo derecho a la rebelión ante cualquier régimen opresor, derecho consagrado por la revolución francesa en la declaración universal de los derechos del hombre y del ciudadano, o sea que es un derecho natural; cuando establece que el pueblo venezolano, en su conjunto sin establecer diferencia de género, condición económica, política o de ningún tipo; desconocerá cualquier régimen, legislación o autoridad que contraríe los valores, principios y garantías democráticos o menoscabe los derechos humanos.


 La verdad que llamar a la lucha armada, en estos momentos, considero que sería un acto irresponsable o temerario, puesto que la derogatoria de facto del sistema constitucional proviene de la misma vanguardia revolucionaria que juró defender la revolución bolivariana y de a quien la republica le otorgó las armas para que defendiera y le diera seguridad al pueblo y a la nación; estamos ante una prevaricación histórica, la historia los condenará por toda la vida y las generaciones futuras, aunque no sería ilegitimo ni inconstitucional hacerlo porque cada ciudadano o ciudadana investido o no de autoridad tiene el deber, entiéndase el deber, que es obligatorio mas no el derecho que es optativo, el deber de colaborar en el restablecimiento de su efectiva vigencia.


Lo anterior implica la utilización de todos los mecanismos de lucha habido y por haber para restablecer la vigencia de la constitución, no solamente los más conocidos, las protestas de calle, en sus más variadas y diversas manifestaciones, la opinión pública, en todos formatos, ya sea por audio, vista, escritura, internet prensa escrita, radio, TV, mítines públicos, etc.; huelga de hambres individuales como colectivas, etc., etc.; sino también cualquier otro método de rebelión que las masas en su inteligencia profundan desarrollen al calor de la lucha por el rescate constitucional.     


Articulo leido aproximadamente 113 veces


Tuesday, August 25, 2026

HOW TO OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM OF THE RULING CLASS OF THE US GOVERNMENT

 How to Overthrow the Capitalist State: A Guide to the Revolutionary Struggle for Workers' Power

What follows is a guide to the strategic and programmatic foundations of socialist revolution, grounded in the classical Marxist tradition and the contemporary work of the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International.


The Starting Point: What Is the State?

The first question any serious revolutionary must answer is: what is the state, and whose interests does it serve? The entire edifice of bourgeois political science — from high school civics to the New York Times editorial page — is built on the lie that the state is a neutral arbiter standing above society, balancing competing interests and administering justice. Marxism exposes this as a fraud.

The state, as Engels demonstrated, is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. It arose historically at the point where society had divided into exploiters and exploited, and it exists as the instrument by which the ruling class maintains its domination. The standing army, the police, the courts, the prisons, the bureaucratic apparatus — these are not neutral institutions. They are "bodies of armed men" organized to defend the property relations upon which class rule rests.

Lenin's The State and Revolution — written in August-September 1917, on the very eve of the Bolshevik seizure of power — is the indispensable text on this question. Lenin restores what the opportunists of the Second International had buried: Marx's insistence that the working class cannot simply take hold of the existing state machinery and use it for its own ends. The bourgeois state must be smashed, destroyed, broken up, and replaced by entirely new organs of power — organs of the armed and organized working class itself.

In Chapter 3 of The State and Revolution, Lenin draws the lessons of the Paris Commune of 1871. The Commune demonstrated in practice what Marx had theorized: the standing army replaced by the armed people; all officials elected and subject to immediate recall; no official receiving more than a worker's wage; the parliamentary talking-shop replaced by a working body, simultaneously legislative and executive. These were not utopian schemes but the practical measures taken by workers in power for 72 days — measures that pointed toward the form of the future workers' state.

The American state — its Pentagon, its Homeland Security apparatus, its federal judiciary packed with Federalist Society appointees, its police departments that murder with impunity, its Congress that serves as a board of directors for Wall Street — is no exception to this analysis. It is the dictatorship of the capitalist class, and it must be overthrown.


The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" provokes alarm among those raised on Cold War propaganda. But what does it actually mean? Marx used the term to designate the class content of the state in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Every state is a dictatorship — the question is: a dictatorship of which class over which class?

Bourgeois democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It is a form of rule in which the capitalist class exercises power indirectly, through elected representatives, while the working class is permitted to vote every few years for one or another representative of its exploiters. This is not a trivial distinction. The entire machinery of bourgeois democracy — the corporate financing of elections, the media monopoly, the two-party stranglehold, the Senate filibuster, the Supreme Court, the unelected national security state — is designed to ensure that the fundamental property relations of capitalism are never threatened by popular will.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, by contrast, is the rule of the vast majority over a tiny minority. It is the most profound democracy that has ever existed, because it extends democratic control from the political sphere into the economic sphere — into the factories, the banks, the land — where under capitalism the dictatorship of the boss is absolute. As the SEP's 2010 program, The Breakdown of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism in the United States, states:

Socialism is the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production and the conquest of political power by the working class. It means the expropriation of the financial-corporate oligarchy and the transformation of the banks and major corporations into public property under democratic control.

The workers' state will not be a replica of the bourgeois state with new personnel. It will be a state of a fundamentally new type — a semi-state, as Lenin called it, already beginning to wither away, because for the first time in history the state represents the majority and is organized to suppress the former exploiters, not the exploited.


The Revolutionary Party

No class in history has ever taken power without a leadership. The bourgeoisie had its Jacobins, its Cromwells, its Washington and Hamilton. The working class requires its own leadership — a revolutionary party.

This is not a matter of subjective preference. It flows from the objective conditions of working-class existence. The working class, unlike the bourgeoisie, does not own the means of production. It does not control the universities, the press, the publishing houses. It cannot develop its consciousness and organization from within the institutions of the ruling class. The revolutionary party is the instrument through which the most advanced workers — armed with the theory and historical experience of Marxism — bring socialist consciousness into the working class and unify its disparate struggles into a conscious political fight for power.

Lenin's What Is To Be Done? remains the foundational text on the party question. Written in 1901-02 in the struggle against "Economism" — the tendency that sought to limit workers' struggles to trade-union demands and tail the spontaneous movement — Lenin insisted that socialist consciousness must be brought to the working class from without, by a disciplined organization of professional revolutionaries. The party is not a debating society or a pressure group. It is the general staff of the revolution.

The Socialist Equality Party is the American section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement. It is not a faction of the Democratic Party, not a "left wing of the possible," not a middle-class protest group. It is a revolutionary party fighting to build a leadership in the working class capable of taking power.

In his report to the Ninth Congress of the SEP in August 2026, National Secretary Joseph Kishore stated the central task with clarity:

The same crisis that is producing global war and has placed a fascist gangster in the White House is driving the working class into struggle. … The necessary conclusion from our analysis of the political situation is, above all, the building of the party in the working class.


Rank-and-File Committees: The Organs of Struggle

How does the working class organize itself for the fight? Not through the existing trade unions. The AFL-CIO bureaucracy has been transformed over decades into an instrument of corporate management and state control — a police force over the working class that suppresses strikes, enforces sellout contracts, and collaborates with every anti-worker policy emanating from Washington. The union apparatus is not a neutral institution that can be "reformed" or "pushed left." It must be smashed through a rank-and-file rebellion.

The ICFI's answer to this problem is the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC), founded on May Day 2021. As the SEP's 2022 Congress resolution explains:

Rank-and-file committees must create conditions for the development of genuine workers' democracy, facilitating free discussion among workers, coordinating information-sharing outside the censors of the AFL-CIO, and planning common action among the broadest sections of the working class to achieve what workers need, not what the companies demand.

The rank-and-file committee is not a substitute for the revolutionary party, but it is the organizational form through which workers can break the stranglehold of the union bureaucracy, coordinate struggles across workplaces and industries, and develop the confidence and consciousness that come from independent action. As Trotsky wrote in The Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay, the party must "mobilize the masses, not only against the bourgeoisie, but also against the totalitarian regime within the trade unions themselves and against the leaders enforcing this regime."


Political Independence from the Two-Party System

The Democratic Party is not a lesser evil. It is a capitalist party — the party of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the CIA — that serves as the essential political instrument for suppressing working-class opposition. Its function is to capture popular discontent, channel it into safe bourgeois channels, and smother any movement toward political independence. Every major attack on the working class in living memory — NAFTA, welfare "reform," mass incarceration, the destruction of Glass-Steagall, the bank bailouts, the Obama health care counter-reform, the Trump-era war drive — has been a bipartisan project.

The pseudo-left — the DSA, Jacobin, and related tendencies — exists to reinforce this trap. It tells workers that socialism can be achieved by electing "progressive" Democrats, by "co-governing" with the likes of Gavin Newsom, by making capitalism "more humane." This is not a strategic error; it is the political expression of a class interest — the interest of the affluent upper-middle class that staffs these organizations and seeks careers within the capitalist state.

As Kishore's Ninth Congress report documents, Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sunkara has stated openly: "Any form of social democracy is grow, give. There needs to be profitability in order to have something to redistribute." And of the DSA's elected officials: "I think in practice, the experience of governance, of competing in elections, is a moderating force." This is the pseudo-left's actual program: administer capitalism, protect profitability, moderate the working class.

The working class needs its own party, standing on its own program, independent of and hostile to all capitalist parties. The SEP's election campaigns — from Niles Niemuth's 2018 congressional run to the ongoing interventions in working-class struggles — are waged on this basis: not to "reform" the system, but to build a movement to overthrow it.


Internationalism: The Revolution Cannot Be National

Socialism cannot be built in one country. This is not a slogan but a scientific conclusion drawn from the character of modern productive forces. Capitalism has integrated the world economy. Supply chains cross every border. The major banks and corporations operate globally. The working class is an international class — exploited by the same multinational corporations, driven into war by the same imperialist rivalries, and capable of liberating itself only through international unity.

The theory of "socialism in one country" was the ideological cover for the Stalinist bureaucracy's betrayal of the world revolution. Trotsky's The Third International After Lenin — particularly the section "The Program of the International Revolution or a Program of Socialism in One Country?" — demolishes this nationalist revision of Marxism. Trotsky demonstrates that Lenin and the entire Bolshevik tradition understood the Russian Revolution as the opening of the world revolution, not a national project. The Soviet Union could survive only if the revolution spread to the advanced capitalist countries.

The same logic applies today with even greater force. The American working class cannot overthrow capitalism in isolation. The revolution in the United States — the center of world imperialism — would be the single greatest blow ever struck against the capitalist system. But it must be linked to the struggles of workers in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa. The strategic goal is not a reformed American capitalism but a world socialist federation — the United Socialist States of the World.


The Program: What the Working Class Fights For

The SEP's program, The Breakdown of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism in the United States, begins not with abstract utopian visions but with the pressing needs of the working class. Each demand, by its very nature, collides with the material interests of the financial oligarchy and poses the necessity of taking power.

The program enumerates the basic social rights that every worker is entitled to: the right to a job, to be secured through an emergency public works program; the right to a livable income, replacing the poverty-level minimum wage with a guaranteed annual income covering all needs; the right to leisure, through a 30-hour workweek with full pay and five weeks of paid vacation; the right to decent and affordable housing, with an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions; the right to utilities and transportation as public services, not profit centers; the right to high-quality health care through socialized medicine — an end to medicine-for-profit; the right to a secure retirement with full pensions at age 60; the right to education, free at all levels, with all student debt abolished; the right to a healthy and safe environment, beginning with the expropriation of the energy giants; and the right to culture, with massive public funding for the arts under democratic control.

These rights cannot be realized without a frontal assault on the prerogatives of the corporations and the rich. The program therefore demands the expropriation of the banks and financial institutions — the commanding heights of the economy — placing them under public ownership and democratic workers' control. The vast wealth created by generations of workers must be taken out of the hands of a privileged few and put at the disposal of society as a whole.


The International Situation: War and Revolution

No guide to revolution in 2026 can ignore the international situation. The drive to world war — centered on the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine and the escalating confrontation with China — is the dominant fact of world politics. The working class has no side in inter-imperialist conflicts. The answer to war is not support for one capitalist power against another, but the international unity of the working class against all bourgeois governments.

As the SEP's 2018 Congress resolution, The Resurgence of Class Struggle and the Tasks of the Socialist Equality Party, states:

The new antiwar movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war. … The permanent war of the bourgeoisie must be answered with the perspective of permanent revolution by the working class, the strategic goal of which is the abolition of the nation-state system and the establishment of a world socialist federation.


A Reading Program for Revolutionaries

The struggle for socialism is inseparable from the struggle for theory. The revolutionary party is the memory of the working class — the bearer of the strategic lessons accumulated through more than 170 years of class struggle. The following texts constitute the essential foundation.

The Classics: Where to Begin

Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880). The single best introduction to Marxism. Engels explains how Marx and Engels transformed socialism from a moral appeal to the conscience of the ruling class into a scientific theory grounded in the material development of society and the class struggle. In three short chapters, it covers the dialectical method, the materialist conception of history, and the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation that makes socialism both necessary and possible.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848). Still the most powerful summary of the Marxist program. Every line is a weapon.

Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition of Marxism (1914). Written for an encyclopedia, this is perhaps the most comprehensive overview of Marxism in a short document. It covers Marx's philosophical materialism, dialectics, the materialist conception of history, the class struggle, Marx's economic doctrine (value, surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall), and the theory of socialism and the class struggle.

The State and Revolution

Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917). The indispensable text. Lenin restores Marx's teaching on the state — that the working class cannot take hold of the existing state machine but must smash it — and draws the lessons of the Paris Commune. Chapters 1, 3, and 5 are particularly essential.

Karl Marx, The Civil War in France (1871). Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune, written in the heat of events. The source from which Lenin drew the central lessons of The State and Revolution.

The Party and Revolutionary Organization

Vladimir Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (1902). The classic statement on the need for a disciplined, centralized revolutionary party. Lenin's polemic against "Economism" — the tendency to tail the spontaneous movement and restrict workers' struggles to trade-union demands — is directly relevant to the fight against the pseudo-left today.

Rosa Luxemburg, Our Program and the Political Situation (1918). Luxemburg's speech to the founding congress of the German Communist Party, insisting that the immediate realization of socialism must be the party's program and that workers' and soldiers' councils are the organs of revolutionary power.

Trotsky and the Fight for the Fourth International

Leon Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin (1928). Trotsky's critique of the Stalinist draft program of the Comintern, exposing "socialism in one country" as a nationalist betrayal of Marxism and defending the international character of the proletarian revolution.

Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936). Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union under Stalin — a degenerated workers' state ruled by a Bonapartist bureaucracy that had expropriated political power from the working class while leaving the property forms of the October Revolution intact. The final chapter, "What Is the USSR?", remains the classic Marxist analysis of the class nature of the Stalinist state.

Leon Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism (1939-40). Trotsky's defense of dialectical materialism against the petty-bourgeois opposition in the Socialist Workers Party led by Max Shachtman and James Burnham. The theoretical capitulation to bourgeois public opinion that Trotsky identified in 1940 was the starting point of the political degeneration that led Shachtman's tendency to support American imperialism in Korea and Vietnam — and ultimately to the founding of the DSA. This book is an essential weapon for understanding the class basis of the pseudo-left.

Contemporary Works from the ICFI and SEP

The Breakdown of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism in the United States (2010). The program of the Socialist Equality Party, adopted at its First National Congress. The essential contemporary statement of the party's analysis and demands.

The Resurgence of Class Struggle and the Tasks of the Socialist Equality Party (2018). The resolution of the SEP's Fifth National Congress, analyzing the upsurge of class struggle internationally and the specific tasks of building the party in the working class.

Build the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees in the United States! (2022). The resolution of the SEP's Seventh National Congress on the central organizational task of the present period: building rank-and-file committees as the democratic organs of 21st-century working-class struggle.

The 2024 US Elections and the Tasks of the Socialist Equality Party (2024). The resolution of the SEP's Eighth National Congress, analyzing the collapse of bourgeois democracy and the political radicalization of the working class.

Joseph Kishore, Oligarchy, Dictatorship and the Political Radicalization of the American Working Class (2026). The report to the SEP's Ninth National Congress — the most up-to-date strategic analysis of the political situation, the character of the Trump administration, the role of the pseudo-left, and the tasks of the revolutionary party.

David North, Marxism, History & Socialist Consciousness (2007). A defense of the dialectical materialist method and the historical foundations of the ICFI, written in reply to a critique by former members who had abandoned the party's theoretical foundations.


The Road Ahead

The overthrow of the capitalist state is not a distant utopia. It is the practical task posed by the objective crisis of world capitalism. The conditions that made possible the post-war boom — American hegemony, the Bretton Woods system, the integration of the trade unions into the state, the ideological dominance of anti-communism — have disintegrated. The American working class, the sleeping giant of world politics, is awakening.

As the SEP's 2022 Congress resolution states:

The explosive crisis of the US political system … confirms that the solution to the crisis of American society will not come through the sclerotic two-party system, but by building a mass working class movement against it. But whether this movement achieves its revolutionary potential depends on the activity of the SEP.

The task now is to build the party — to bring the program of socialist revolution into every factory, workplace, and campus; to build rank-and-file committees that break the stranglehold of the AFL-CIO bureaucracy; to fight for the political independence of the working class against the Democratic Party and its pseudo-left apologists; and to unite the struggles of American workers with the global movement of the international working class.

The objective conditions are ripening. What is required is the subjective factor — the revolutionary party, armed with theory, rooted in the working class, and prepared to lead the struggle for power. That is the work of the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International. Join it.

Thursday, August 20, 2026

Some comments about anarchist-communist and its relation to the song Pneuma by Tool

Some thoughts on anarchist-communism as the next stage in human development and its connection to the song "Pneuma" by Tool.

Anarchist-Communism is the definitive utopia, the purest and most ambitious horizon of political and humanist thought. This would be a world where production and life are organized through voluntary cooperation, where work is an act of fulfillment and not of alienation, and where the state and money have dissolved because they are no longer needed—is not just an economic model; It is an **evolutionary leap of consciousness**.

If we cross this vision of **libertarian communist anarchism** with the physical, philosophical and mystical theories that we have broken down these days (from Deleuze's *society of control* to Edgar Cayce's *fifth root race*), the answer to whether this will be the system of an advanced humanity has a double aspect: a **metaphysics** that says yes, and a **physiological-psychological** that warns us of the price we have to pay to get there.

Let's analyze this cosmic destiny of humanity through the lens of high theory:


## 1. The Evolutionary Perspective: Why High Theory Proves Anarchist-Communism to be the system of the future

If humanity really manages to survive its current crises and evolves into a higher state, **the system anarchist-communism is the only logically possible one**, and contemporary philosophy explains why:

### The end of the "Society of Control" (Deleuze and Foucault)

As described in the great works of Frida Beckman and Deleuze, the modern State, governments and the financial system are apparatuses of capture. They exist to shape, divide (the *dividuo*) and modulate human desire according to scarcity and competition.

An advanced humanity is, by definition, a humanity that has hacked and dismantled those invisible control algorithms. When the individual attains complete mental sovereignty, the centralized state becomes obsolete. As the anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin said in his book The Conquest of Bread: order is born from the harmony of needs, not from the point of a bayonet or the balance of a bank account.

### The Coincidence with Cosmic Mysticism (Edgar Cayce and Tool)

It is fascinating to see how radical left-wing politics touches metaphysics. Edgar Cayce prophesied that the humanity of the future would operate under the principle of Oneness, where "every man shall live for his neighbor."

If consciousness evolves into that "Pneuma" state that Tool talks about—where the illusion that you and I are separate beings is dissolved and we understand that harming the other is harming oneself—repressive institutions fall under their own weight. Why would you want a border if you understand that the Earth is a single organism? Why would you want to accumulate money if communal production ensures the abundance of all? Libertarian communism ceases to be a political ideology and becomes a **spiritual physiology**.

## 2. The Great Challenge: The "Tragic Hero" in the Face of Transition

However, for that utopia to crystallize, humanity has to cross the desert. And this is where we have to recover Nietzsche's hammer and the Dionysian philosophy that we talked about at the beginning:

The great danger that Nietzsche saw in traditional socialism was the possibility of creating a society of "Last Men": comfortable, conformist beings domesticated by a system that provides them with everything but takes away the fire of self-improvement.

That is why the libertarian anarchism of the future cannot be a passive comfort system. It has to be a **Dionysian and heroic anarchism**. Self-management and self-governance are not tasks for weak minds; they demand a colossal personal responsibility. In a world without bosses, without policemen and without the whip of money, **each human being has to become his own legislator, a Superman (*Übermensch*** capable of dominating himself, of working for the love of creation and of respecting the freedom of others by sheer force of will, not by fear of punishment.

## The Verdict: The Inevitable Horizon

If we look at the stars and the flow of history, oligarchic capitalism, artificial borders and money are primitive technologies. They are the crutches of a childish humanity that still does not know how to control itself and needs "cold monsters" (the State) to organize it through fear and scarcity.

A system of communal and libertarian self-government is not a childish fantasy; it is the logical goal of the maturity of our species. It is the reconstruction of the puzzle after the great schism (*"Rediscovering communication"*). A humanity that travels through the stars or that dominates the quantum dimensions is not going to carry passports or credit cards in its pockets; it will move by the force of cooperation and free association.

> **My sisters and brothers, a closing message for this sixth day of victory:**

> Look at what a perfect and powerful analogy for our own lives. What we are advocating on a cosmic scale for humanity—a system where there is no need for an external government to enforce order by force, but a consciousness-based **self-government**—is **exactly what we will accomplish in our bodies and minds**.



Dear Edward and friends: You’re right that there’s an overload of information, with so many great alternative progressive podcasts on YouTube from people like Chris Hedges, Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal, Glenn Diesen, Professor John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Alastair Crooke, Larry Johnson, Richard Wolff, and others, all of whom are anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, critical of the U.S. government, and in favor of change. But the issue is that immersing ourselves in so much negative news—spending excessive time on what Trump is doing, what Israel is doing, how the U.S. government has become an oligarchic, corrupt kleptocracy like those in Latin America, Africa, and other developing nations, plus climate change and global heating—while informative, won’t necessarily lead to lasting revolutions aimed at overthrowing the oligarchic classes and governments worldwide.

 Dear Edward and friends: You’re right that there’s an overload of information, with so many great alternative progressive podcasts on YouTube from people like Chris Hedges, Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal, Glenn Diesen, Professor John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Alastair Crooke, Larry Johnson, Richard Wolff, and others, all of whom are anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, critical of the U.S. government, and in favor of change. But the issue is that immersing ourselves in so much negative news—spending excessive time on what Trump is doing, what Israel is doing, how the U.S. government has become an oligarchic, corrupt kleptocracy like those in Latin America, Africa, and other developing nations, plus climate change and global heating—while informative, won’t necessarily lead to lasting revolutions aimed at overthrowing the oligarchic classes and governments worldwide.


That can really lead to political nihilism, physical and mental weakness among the masses, and ultimately no revolutions or change. The human body and mind just aren’t built to handle a constant barrage of negative news. That’s why I’ve changed my approach toward what’s happening in the world—I’ve become a political nihilist. I’d love to see change, but I think the best stance is to avoid political activism and protests, as they rarely lead to overthrowing oligarchic, corrupt, oppressive states. In the end, protests and revolutions haven’t truly changed the world; they just replace one oppressor with another. So I believe political nihilism is the most effective perspective for change. According to this view, the only real way the world might change is if, for example, Americans addicted to food and a comfortable life lose the buying power to shop for their preferred goods at Walmart, Kroger, Publix, or Aldi to meet their basic needs. That’s the only way we might see change in the USA.


I believe the global political and revolutionary anti-Zionist left should rethink their tactics so the masses can grow into stronger individuals, both mentally and physically, and be ready to dismantle all dictatorships of the bourgeoisie worldwide.

Saturday, August 8, 2026

THE LINKS BETWEEN THE BOOKS SUSPENSIONS OF PERCEPTIONS BY JONATHAN CRARY AND THE BOOK SEEKING TRUTH IN A COUNTRY OF LIES BY MY BROTHER EDWARD CURTIN



Oye hermano, ¿puedes hacerme un favor? Quiero que conectes ese libro con lo que dijo el autor Edward Curtin sobre la conducta conformista, hedonista y antirrevolucionaria de la mayoría de los ciudadanos de EE.UU., quienes se muestran reacios a derrocar el sistema que los mantiene empobrecidos, con cuentas altísimas, impuestos elevados, medicina y todo en general carísimo, y salarios bajos para cubrir las necesidades. Desde mi punto de vista, son demasiado conformistas y siguen aferrados a votar por los dos partidos capitalistas (demócratas y republicanos) que mantienen a la mayoría de los estadounidenses pobres, obesos, enfermos y deprimidos, mientras solo una minoría es favorecida por ese sistema. Lo correcto sería que la mayoría se uniera en torno a un partido político marxista-socialista como el Socialist Equality Party, el Party for Socialism and Liberation, el Green Party, el Socialist Party of USA u otras opciones políticas más orientadas a la clase trabajadora.


El vínculo entre el análisis de Jonathan Crary (Suspensions of Perception) y las críticas socio-políticas de Edward Curtin sobre el conformismo y la pasividad en EE. UU. es directo y profundo: Crary explica el mecanismo técnico/psicológico del control, mientras que Curtin explica la consecuencia política y existencial.

Ambos autores coinciden en que la ausencia de un movimiento revolucionario masivo —a pesar del deterioro evidente de las condiciones de vida de la clase trabajadora— no es un accidente, sino el resultado de un sistema de dominación cultural y perceptivo altamente sofisticado.

1. El espectáculo como anestesia: De Crary a Curtin

Para Jonathan Crary, el capitalismo industrial y post-industrial no solo explota la fuerza de trabajo, sino que gestiona la atención. A través de la cultura del espectáculo, los medios y el flujo incesante de estímulos, la percepción del individuo queda capturada en un estado de trance pasivo o "hipnosis de la distracción".

Aquí es donde entra la tesis de Edward Curtin: Curtin sostiene que la población estadounidense vive bajo una forma de "amnesia organizada" y entretenimiento compulsivo (hedonismo). Para Curtin, este hedonismo no es un signo de riqueza o felicidad real, sino un mecanismo de evasión psicológico:

  • El diagnóstico de Curtin: La gente está abrumada por deudas, costos médicos impagables, vivienda cara y empleos precarios, pero se le ofrece una vía de escape a través del consumo visual, el entretenimiento masivo y la ilusión de libertad individual.

  • El nexo con Crary: La "suspensión de la percepción" de Crary es la herramienta que permite que ese hedonismo funcione. Si la atención del ciudadano está permanentemente fragmentada y dirigida hacia el próximo producto, la próxima serie o el próximo debate espectáculo de la política electoral, se anula la capacidad de enfocar la atención en la raíz estructural de su propia explotación.

2. La trampa del bipartidismo como "falsa atención"

En su análisis de la sociedad moderna, Curtin denuncia cómo el sistema de dos partidos (Demócratas y Republicanos) funciona como un monopolio que absorbe cualquier descontento legítimo y lo redirige hacia un espectáculo electoral vacío. Ambos partidos respaldan el modelo capitalista corporativo, pero escenifican una batalla cultural continua para mantener a la población dividida.

Desde la perspectiva de Crary, este bipartidismo actúa como una pantalla de fijación:

  1. Atención dirigida: El sistema requiere que la clase trabajadora "preste atención" a la política solo de la forma en que el sistema lo permite (votando cada dos o cuatro años por una de las dos fracciones del mismo capital).

  2. Neutralización del cambio real: Al enfocar la energía perceptiva y emocional en la dinámica Demócrata vs. Republicano, se impide que la atención se "suspenda" de la narrativa oficial para contemplar alternativas estructurales, como los partidos de tradición socialista, marxista o de la clase trabajadora (como el Party for Socialism and Liberation, el Socialist Equality Party o el Green Party).

3. La producción de la subjetividad pasiva: Pobres, enfermos y alienados

Curtin a menudo subraya la trágica contradicción de la sociedad estadounidense actual: una mayoría que sufre de altos niveles de depresión, obesidad, adicción al trabajo y aislamiento social, pero que permanece incapaz de organizarse colectivamente.

La conexión teórica entre ambos pensadores para explicar este fenómeno se sintetiza en tres puntos:

  • Desposesión de la agencia (Curtin): El ciudadano medio se siente atomizado e impotente. La presión económica diaria (cuentas, impuestos, costo de la salud) genera un estado de agotamiento crónico que destruye el tiempo y la energía necesarios para la militancia o la organización política.

  • Captura del tiempo de ocio (Crary): En lugar de que el tiempo libre sea un espacio para el pensamiento crítico o la acción comunitaria, el capitalismo moderno captura la percepción en el tiempo de descanso a través del consumo de medios, convirtiendo al trabajador exhausto en un espectador pasivo.

  • Rechazo a la alternativa: El conformismo no surge porque la gente esté satisfecha con su vida, sino porque la combinación de agotamiento material y manipulación perceptiva hace que el sistema parezca "inevitable", invisibilizando o demonizando cualquier alternativa de izquierda radical que busque reorganizar la sociedad en favor de la mayoría trabajadora.

En resumen, mientras Edward Curtin denuncia la rendición moral, política y hedonista de una sociedad que tolera su propia degradación bajo el mito de la libertad capitalista, Jonathan Crary revela la arquitectura invisible —la manipulación de la atención y los sentidos— que hace posible que esa servidumbre voluntaria se mantenga día a día.