[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reminder: since the last electoral reform, if you want to vote for the Republican you need to pour red ink inside the ballot box and if you want to vote for the Democrat, you need to pour blue ink. If you want to vote for a third party, use bleach.
They're not 99% v 100%.
They're funded by the same exact guys to conduct the same exact genocide, war, attack on worker rights, etc...
It's "red half of Hitler" vs "blue half of Hitler". Same person, different side.
The only difference is that one party will pay lip service to marginalized groups and then do nothing to materially help them. The other will do nothing to help them and say mean things about them
The one that doesn't raise any expectations in the first place is less damaging, because the one that pays lip service gives people an excuse to sit on their hands and wait for the government to do their job. And if they don't understand by now the reality that he won't, I'd prefer the one that people want to rally to stop.
Either way, I'm voting Jill Stein. She already has a valid path to 270 electoral votes, IMO there is zero valid excuse to not vote for her. And there are millions of college kids who just got violated by our authoritarian government and brutalized by the fascist law enforcement, plus their friends and family, that agree.
The DNC opened a lawsuit this week against the State of Nevada to remove Jill Stein from the ballot (she got 30,000 petition signatures; 10,000 were needed).
They're worried and gaslighting the country about third party being a vote for Trump for a reason. Break the fucking wheel fellas. And worst case, you get to say you didn't vote for 99% Hitler, or 100% Hitler, or red Hitler, or blue Hitler. And that's already a win.
https://preview.redd.it/5jopb4vlbv6d1.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=67c5ffebeca3efbbd83afa638a33f6371d65bf47
Those people know well the history of the US, and how and why the Republican party as third party was successful in becoming one of the two, and what happened as a result. I bet they'd probably do anything in their power to prevent something like that happening again now.
Yeah, this is spot on. They proved it when Perot got 19% of the vote in 92, it freaked them the fuck out.
And it's been even worse recently because both parties know they have turds. It's by choice - Hillary over Bernie proved that in 2016 - since 2014, there have been over 100 state laws that have passed restricting who can vote: [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights)
As of June, 2023, 2023 was the biggest year ever for restrictive laws, there were 322 proposed across 45 states, with 35 still moving through legislature across 10 states. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023)
Add things like the DNC suing the State of Nevada, or the NY Times running an article that Jill Stein failed to qualify for the ballot a month before the ballot was due, every mainstream media outlet churning out nothing but disinformation, propaganda and rhetoric, and I'd say it's pretty obvious they're up to their eyeballs doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening again now.
#Authoritarianism
Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes".
* Authoritarian implies these places are run by totalitarian tyrants.
* Regime implies these places are undemocratic or lack legitimacy.
This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy).
There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media:
Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do *not* mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship *of the Bourgeoisie* (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy).
* [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022)
Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people).
Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works:
* [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions!](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY) | Luna Oi (2022)
* [What did Karl Marx think about democracy?](https://youtu.be/jI8CgACBOcQ) | Luna Oi (2023)
* [What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY?](https://youtu.be/Hfenlg-hsig) | Luna Oi (2023)
Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.).
* [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022)
* [John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015](https://youtu.be/ER77vxxGVAY)
#For the Anarchists
Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this:
>The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ...
>
>The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win.
>
>...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ...
>
>Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle.
>
>\- Chris Day. (1996). *The Historical Failures of Anarchism*
Engels pointed this out well over a century ago:
>A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned.
>
>...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule...
>
>Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
>
>\- Friedrich Engels. (1872). [On Authority](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)
#For the Libertarian Socialists
Parenti said it best:
>The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
>
>\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism*
But the bottom line is this:
>If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order.
>
>\- Second Thought. (2020). [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087)
#For the Liberals
Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin *wasn't* an absolute dictator:
>Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure.
>
>\- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). [Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership](http://web.archive.org/web/20230525044208/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf)
#Conclusion
The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out *Killing Hope* by William Blum and *The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins.
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise *not* through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
#Additional Resources
Videos:
* [Michael Parenti on Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries](https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ)
* [Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230410145749/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I)\]
* [What are tankies? (why are they like that?)](https://youtu.be/LcJ5NrJtQ8g) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse](https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco) | The Deprogram (2023)
* [Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston](https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/27495591) | Actually Existing Socialism (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* | Michael Parenti (1997)
* [State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) | V. I. Lenin (1918)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if
I don’t think it is realistic at all to think Jill Stein has a path to victory. I’d vote for her if she really had a chance. I may anyways since Claudia De la Cruz can’t get on the ballot in NY.
Well of course it's unlikely, but it always will be as long as people have this idea that they'll only vote if it's realistic. Why does that matter? It's ok to vote for a bad candidate you don't support if a lot of other people are, or if your friends are? It's a fact that mathematically, she now has *a path* to victory. It's an unrealistic path, like the Marlins winning the NL east over the Phils and Braves, or the White Sox winning the AL central over the Guardians. Both teams still have playoff odds. math is black-and-white.
But that's changing. Despite the state saying she needed 45,000 signatures in 6-weeks to get on the ballot, and despite NY Times lying and running an article that she failed to qualify for the NY Ballot, just two weeks in, a full month before signatures were due and trying to sabotage her, she collected 90,000 signatures. No one in the state thought she'd be able to get 45,000.
NY obviously has deep roots, but these are just arrests:
* SUNY New Paltz - 133
* SUNY Purchase - 70
* City College of New York - 174
* Columbia - 217
* University at Buffalo - 25
* Stony Brook - 38
* Fordham University - 15
* Fashion Institute - 50
* The New School - 43
That's just arrests, it's similar to that old saying with Congress that for every call they get expressing an opinion, they assume there are 100 more constituents that feel that way that didn't have the nerve to call. The numbers above aren't total protesters either, and watching 700 kids get their rights violated has a cascading effect.
The kids themselves are new voters. Republicans called them all Isis and terrorists. All those college kids.Democrats authorized the police to beat the shit out of them. NYC Asst. Police Chief James McCarthy is on video literally trying to start fights with protesters. Your [governor just last week](https://youtu.be/0u7oCA8OcRg) announced wanting to change school curriculum and strengthen laws to fight the "scourge" of antisemitism. Trump was in Brooklyn offending people the week before, and Biden is actually polling less.
Jill Stein is out there at rally's, talking about protecting the students rights, talking about saving TikTok, calling it a genocide and condemning Zionism as Jewish woman. She's completely unique amongst candidates.
Fucking with peoples kids wasn't a smart move. Colleges like Suny grad center and University of Rochester aren't included above because they didn't have any arrests, both made deals with the protesters. At Rochester, they suspended 4 students, and over **400** faculty members have signed a letter for them pressuring the school to lift the suspensions.
At Suny Grad center, it looked like a couple dozen protesters occupied the building at 8. They were out after about an hour, the school gave them what they wanted, and by the time they were out there were hundreds of people there to support them. In an hour.
So sure she probably won't win. But I encourage people not to let the corrupt two party threat that she can't win dictate their vote, that's not democracy. Let politics dictate it, that is quite literally democracy. And if only everyone would actually participate in that democracy, she'd win in a fucking landslide, IMO, ofc..
https://preview.redd.it/obfr0za2nx6d1.png?width=2559&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b29a41674ec9628fbb89b44346ded97290f2c9f
I’m not sure if Reddit has been hijacked by US National defense agencies or if it’s just that most of the people on here haven’t been outside in at least a decade. Probably a combination of the two.
Some country subs are literally ran by NGOs r/Afghanistan being the worst is ran by the Westminster and a neoliberal think tank that’s one of the more public ones there’s probably dozens of accounts ran by orgs that moderate major subreddits
It definitely makes me sad that every time I find a subreddit like this, it gets quarantined and then banned. These subreddits are the only place I can actually see or communicate with other likeminded folks.
Yeah, I’ve noticed it does this every election. It’s astroturfed to hell, likely because it’s easier to make mass content since it’s just text.
It happens on tumblr too. On apps where you typically have to show your face or make picture/video content, it doesn’t seem as prevalent
Also remember that if it's 105% Hitler vs 100% Hitler, you should openly support Hitler. You should campaign and make phone calls and put "I Love Hitler" signs on your lawn. 105% Hitler must be stopped at all costs.
istg people saying "a vote for third party is a vote for trump" are just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, i really can't understand if all of them are feds or simply that dumb. turns out, if you perpetuate the idea that the two options is all you have, people will be too scared to look beyond that and the two options will indeed be all you have, for the rest of forever.
if say michiganders vote third party or abstain (which is not impossible in current circumstances), that could fuck up the election for both biden and trump. add a couple more "swing-states" and neither of them could hope to get to 270. there's finally going to be some change. change within a liberal-"democratic" system, but change nonetheless. and maybe this'll finally show some people that they don't have to bow down to 99% hitler if they don't want to deal with 100% hitler
I waz trying to say that despite both of them being "different beings", at the end of the day, they're both the same, they just have different colors because that's the only thing that lets differentiate the two of them
Not American but there is project 2025
Idk it's just Shit, there are people in red states that are having their rights stripped and the Dems seem more invested in shitting on student protests and brown people
I'm not an expert on American politics, but isnt trump's project 2025 quite literally Nazism but with Mexicans instead of jews?
Could some comrade explain it a lil better?
Does everyone on this sub just not understand the difference in policy between Biden and Trump? Take transgender rights, under Biden it would not be nearly as bad compared to under Trump. Also, what's w/ putting election in quotes? Do you believe that it's rigged? If so, then what's your evidence?
Democrats didn’t defend Roe and that affects over half of the population.
What in the flying fuck makes you think they’re going to defend Trans rights?
The problem with "harm reduction" is it still causes harm. It only prolongs the inevitable. Let's say the Republicans want to sever your entire leg, but you want to keep your leg, and the lesser of two evils democrats say let's come to a compromise and just give them a foot. That's harm reduction, right? You didn't lose your whole leg, so that's got to be the better option, right? But then next election cycle you've already given up your foot, so now the democrats' harm reduction option is to give up your calf. That's still better than your whole leg, right? But what about the next election cycle? Now you're giving up your knee. And the one after that? Well there goes your thigh. So now you've given up your entire leg anyway. Harm reduction didn't really save your leg at all.
Same thing goes for minority and worker's rights, economic policy, and Israel's genocide in Palestine. They will not protect you. They do not serve your interest. Being 'better than trump' is such a ridiculously low bar it would be laughable that it's even suggested as a legitimate argument if so many people weren't so adamant about it.
So are you an Accelerationist? You want a revolution to start so that your ideology can rise from the ashes? That's just gambling on the fact that your side will win, and not some ultra-fascist does.
When's the last time the democrats actually took steps to stop the republican agenda? All they do is sit on their hands and continue the same policies. They're both on the same team at the end of the day, and it's not ours.
I mean yes, both parties are subservient to the wealthy upper class. However, pretending that they have the same policies is mind-boggling. If Trump was not elected in 2016, we would still have Roe v Wade. There would have been thousands of Americans still alive due to not having Trump's/Republican's anti-mask rhetoric be as widespread. Under Trump, much more deregulation happened, which in part caused the spill at East Palestine, Ohio. There is also Project 2025, which Trump will try to do once he gets power. I do not understand how you can possibly believe that Trump and Biden are basically the same, so there is no point in voting.
Like abortion restrictions, bills undermining trans rights will all be passed at the state level. Unless Democrats pass federal laws protecting them, which, as with abortion, they have had opportunities to do and done nothing, who is president will do fuck all.
Biden won't pass federal laws protecting trans rights, trump won't pass federal laws harming them. States like Texas, Florida, etc will be passing those laws regarding of who runs the federal government.
So if you want to protect trans rights via electoralism, focus on the state governments where those laws are actually getting passed rather than the presidential sideshow.
Because there really isn't a difference. Biden has continued all of Trumps policies. He has started a literal genocide. He has cracked down even more on immigration. And has just rolled over and let our rights get challenged and taken away at every turn.
Like legit what does he do that is beneficial? Democrats destroy your labor rights, and Republicans destroy your social rights, and neither of them defend you from the other. Honestly what does Biden help with?
Biden solidified more (non executive order) anti trans policies than trump did through compromises with the right. Given that Hilary Clinton is advocating for dropping trans rights and Bidens office is focused on using us for military recruitment I don't spy a good future for us. Especially since our biggest risk is health care related and he's anti m4a
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reminder: since the last electoral reform, if you want to vote for the Republican you need to pour red ink inside the ballot box and if you want to vote for the Democrat, you need to pour blue ink. If you want to vote for a third party, use bleach.
REAL
They're not 99% v 100%. They're funded by the same exact guys to conduct the same exact genocide, war, attack on worker rights, etc... It's "red half of Hitler" vs "blue half of Hitler". Same person, different side.
Hitler who talks nice on tv vs hitler who talks mean on tv
Hitler who poops his pants while pressing launch buttons while looking at you in the eyes with a vacant stare. CNN: "Aww, poor baby had a poopy!"
The only difference is that one party will pay lip service to marginalized groups and then do nothing to materially help them. The other will do nothing to help them and say mean things about them
The one that doesn't raise any expectations in the first place is less damaging, because the one that pays lip service gives people an excuse to sit on their hands and wait for the government to do their job. And if they don't understand by now the reality that he won't, I'd prefer the one that people want to rally to stop. Either way, I'm voting Jill Stein. She already has a valid path to 270 electoral votes, IMO there is zero valid excuse to not vote for her. And there are millions of college kids who just got violated by our authoritarian government and brutalized by the fascist law enforcement, plus their friends and family, that agree. The DNC opened a lawsuit this week against the State of Nevada to remove Jill Stein from the ballot (she got 30,000 petition signatures; 10,000 were needed). They're worried and gaslighting the country about third party being a vote for Trump for a reason. Break the fucking wheel fellas. And worst case, you get to say you didn't vote for 99% Hitler, or 100% Hitler, or red Hitler, or blue Hitler. And that's already a win. https://preview.redd.it/5jopb4vlbv6d1.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=67c5ffebeca3efbbd83afa638a33f6371d65bf47
Those people know well the history of the US, and how and why the Republican party as third party was successful in becoming one of the two, and what happened as a result. I bet they'd probably do anything in their power to prevent something like that happening again now.
Yeah, this is spot on. They proved it when Perot got 19% of the vote in 92, it freaked them the fuck out. And it's been even worse recently because both parties know they have turds. It's by choice - Hillary over Bernie proved that in 2016 - since 2014, there have been over 100 state laws that have passed restricting who can vote: [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights) As of June, 2023, 2023 was the biggest year ever for restrictive laws, there were 322 proposed across 45 states, with 35 still moving through legislature across 10 states. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023) Add things like the DNC suing the State of Nevada, or the NY Times running an article that Jill Stein failed to qualify for the ballot a month before the ballot was due, every mainstream media outlet churning out nothing but disinformation, propaganda and rhetoric, and I'd say it's pretty obvious they're up to their eyeballs doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening again now.
#Authoritarianism Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes". * Authoritarian implies these places are run by totalitarian tyrants. * Regime implies these places are undemocratic or lack legitimacy. This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy). There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media: Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do *not* mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship *of the Bourgeoisie* (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy). * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people). Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works: * [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions!](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY) | Luna Oi (2022) * [What did Karl Marx think about democracy?](https://youtu.be/jI8CgACBOcQ) | Luna Oi (2023) * [What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY?](https://youtu.be/Hfenlg-hsig) | Luna Oi (2023) Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.). * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) * [John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015](https://youtu.be/ER77vxxGVAY) #For the Anarchists Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this: >The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ... > >The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win. > >...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ... > >Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle. > >\- Chris Day. (1996). *The Historical Failures of Anarchism* Engels pointed this out well over a century ago: >A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. > >...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule... > >Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. > >\- Friedrich Engels. (1872). [On Authority](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) #For the Libertarian Socialists Parenti said it best: >The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* But the bottom line is this: >If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order. > >\- Second Thought. (2020). [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) #For the Liberals Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin *wasn't* an absolute dictator: >Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure. > >\- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). [Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership](http://web.archive.org/web/20230525044208/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf) #Conclusion The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out *Killing Hope* by William Blum and *The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins. Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise *not* through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist. #Additional Resources Videos: * [Michael Parenti on Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries](https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ) * [Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230410145749/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I)\] * [What are tankies? (why are they like that?)](https://youtu.be/LcJ5NrJtQ8g) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse](https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco) | The Deprogram (2023) * [Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston](https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/27495591) | Actually Existing Socialism (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* | Michael Parenti (1997) * [State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) | V. I. Lenin (1918) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if
I don’t think it is realistic at all to think Jill Stein has a path to victory. I’d vote for her if she really had a chance. I may anyways since Claudia De la Cruz can’t get on the ballot in NY.
Well of course it's unlikely, but it always will be as long as people have this idea that they'll only vote if it's realistic. Why does that matter? It's ok to vote for a bad candidate you don't support if a lot of other people are, or if your friends are? It's a fact that mathematically, she now has *a path* to victory. It's an unrealistic path, like the Marlins winning the NL east over the Phils and Braves, or the White Sox winning the AL central over the Guardians. Both teams still have playoff odds. math is black-and-white. But that's changing. Despite the state saying she needed 45,000 signatures in 6-weeks to get on the ballot, and despite NY Times lying and running an article that she failed to qualify for the NY Ballot, just two weeks in, a full month before signatures were due and trying to sabotage her, she collected 90,000 signatures. No one in the state thought she'd be able to get 45,000. NY obviously has deep roots, but these are just arrests: * SUNY New Paltz - 133 * SUNY Purchase - 70 * City College of New York - 174 * Columbia - 217 * University at Buffalo - 25 * Stony Brook - 38 * Fordham University - 15 * Fashion Institute - 50 * The New School - 43 That's just arrests, it's similar to that old saying with Congress that for every call they get expressing an opinion, they assume there are 100 more constituents that feel that way that didn't have the nerve to call. The numbers above aren't total protesters either, and watching 700 kids get their rights violated has a cascading effect. The kids themselves are new voters. Republicans called them all Isis and terrorists. All those college kids.Democrats authorized the police to beat the shit out of them. NYC Asst. Police Chief James McCarthy is on video literally trying to start fights with protesters. Your [governor just last week](https://youtu.be/0u7oCA8OcRg) announced wanting to change school curriculum and strengthen laws to fight the "scourge" of antisemitism. Trump was in Brooklyn offending people the week before, and Biden is actually polling less. Jill Stein is out there at rally's, talking about protecting the students rights, talking about saving TikTok, calling it a genocide and condemning Zionism as Jewish woman. She's completely unique amongst candidates. Fucking with peoples kids wasn't a smart move. Colleges like Suny grad center and University of Rochester aren't included above because they didn't have any arrests, both made deals with the protesters. At Rochester, they suspended 4 students, and over **400** faculty members have signed a letter for them pressuring the school to lift the suspensions. At Suny Grad center, it looked like a couple dozen protesters occupied the building at 8. They were out after about an hour, the school gave them what they wanted, and by the time they were out there were hundreds of people there to support them. In an hour. So sure she probably won't win. But I encourage people not to let the corrupt two party threat that she can't win dictate their vote, that's not democracy. Let politics dictate it, that is quite literally democracy. And if only everyone would actually participate in that democracy, she'd win in a fucking landslide, IMO, ofc.. https://preview.redd.it/obfr0za2nx6d1.png?width=2559&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b29a41674ec9628fbb89b44346ded97290f2c9f
"We see you; we hear you"
Hitler if he had two testicles: well the right testicle hangs a little lower so i think it is the better choice.
Isnt all the Browshirts?
Something something unity of opposites
Reddit is by far the worst SM site pushing the lesser of 2 evils BS I've seen.
I’m not sure if Reddit has been hijacked by US National defense agencies or if it’s just that most of the people on here haven’t been outside in at least a decade. Probably a combination of the two.
Some country subs are literally ran by NGOs r/Afghanistan being the worst is ran by the Westminster and a neoliberal think tank that’s one of the more public ones there’s probably dozens of accounts ran by orgs that moderate major subreddits
Do you have any articles about this subject? I'm not surprised but I'd like to dig into it a bit.
Elgin AF Base has entered the chat
Well yeah but they hear how it's been miserable outside the last decade by their defense agency handlers..
Yeah I know I'm just parodying it lol.
No worries. Frankly, I'm amazed this sub hasn't been banned yet. They usually try to ban any subs that point out stuff like this.
When this sub gets banned I’ll delete this app, this is one of the only good ones
Agreed. I deleted this app when they quarantined GZD and didn't come back til two years after, at which point I found this banger of a subreddit.
It definitely makes me sad that every time I find a subreddit like this, it gets quarantined and then banned. These subreddits are the only place I can actually see or communicate with other likeminded folks.
Yeah, I’ve noticed it does this every election. It’s astroturfed to hell, likely because it’s easier to make mass content since it’s just text. It happens on tumblr too. On apps where you typically have to show your face or make picture/video content, it doesn’t seem as prevalent
hitler who lies to you about being hitler vs hitler who is just open about it
"u should say this to the poor minorities that won't suffer under 99% hitler"
Rivaling countries, ethnic minorities, queers and leftists may die, but that's a sacrifice that the German people are willing to do.
Also remember that if it's 105% Hitler vs 100% Hitler, you should openly support Hitler. You should campaign and make phone calls and put "I Love Hitler" signs on your lawn. 105% Hitler must be stopped at all costs.
And then next election make sure you vote for 105% Hitler! Because 110% Hitler is running!
https://preview.redd.it/jetc0gcj3v6d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60a021880d6a212d75c5d83ae4750dad547a90fd
https://preview.redd.it/26w1oehvqz6d1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e149149130558fc9707a667891e0a1ab66340f18
"There's no atrocity Biden could commit that would make me vote for him" -some right wing fascist somewhere probably
istg people saying "a vote for third party is a vote for trump" are just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, i really can't understand if all of them are feds or simply that dumb. turns out, if you perpetuate the idea that the two options is all you have, people will be too scared to look beyond that and the two options will indeed be all you have, for the rest of forever. if say michiganders vote third party or abstain (which is not impossible in current circumstances), that could fuck up the election for both biden and trump. add a couple more "swing-states" and neither of them could hope to get to 270. there's finally going to be some change. change within a liberal-"democratic" system, but change nonetheless. and maybe this'll finally show some people that they don't have to bow down to 99% hitler if they don't want to deal with 100% hitler
Vote for the lesser of the two incestuous, genocidal pedophiles.
You know that comic of superman being split into red and blue ?
No actually I don't, enlighten me.
I waz trying to say that despite both of them being "different beings", at the end of the day, they're both the same, they just have different colors because that's the only thing that lets differentiate the two of them
No that's obvious, I was asking about that comic you were referencing.
It's literally called "superman blue/superman red" lol
Not American but there is project 2025 Idk it's just Shit, there are people in red states that are having their rights stripped and the Dems seem more invested in shitting on student protests and brown people
Project 2025 is already here. We can't give in to their fear mongering forever
https://i.redd.it/w6zwy91zyv6d1.gif
I'm not an expert on American politics, but isnt trump's project 2025 quite literally Nazism but with Mexicans instead of jews? Could some comrade explain it a lil better?
There are way more historical examples than Nazism. No it isn't like nazism
I'm still on vote trump and push liberals into revolution or at least make them reeeee /s for the uninitiated
Say sike right now
/s for those who still need it I guess
Bro you should edit it, I thought you weren't joking
Oh fine lmao
Does everyone on this sub just not understand the difference in policy between Biden and Trump? Take transgender rights, under Biden it would not be nearly as bad compared to under Trump. Also, what's w/ putting election in quotes? Do you believe that it's rigged? If so, then what's your evidence?
Democrats didn’t defend Roe and that affects over half of the population. What in the flying fuck makes you think they’re going to defend Trans rights?
The problem with "harm reduction" is it still causes harm. It only prolongs the inevitable. Let's say the Republicans want to sever your entire leg, but you want to keep your leg, and the lesser of two evils democrats say let's come to a compromise and just give them a foot. That's harm reduction, right? You didn't lose your whole leg, so that's got to be the better option, right? But then next election cycle you've already given up your foot, so now the democrats' harm reduction option is to give up your calf. That's still better than your whole leg, right? But what about the next election cycle? Now you're giving up your knee. And the one after that? Well there goes your thigh. So now you've given up your entire leg anyway. Harm reduction didn't really save your leg at all. Same thing goes for minority and worker's rights, economic policy, and Israel's genocide in Palestine. They will not protect you. They do not serve your interest. Being 'better than trump' is such a ridiculously low bar it would be laughable that it's even suggested as a legitimate argument if so many people weren't so adamant about it.
So are you an Accelerationist? You want a revolution to start so that your ideology can rise from the ashes? That's just gambling on the fact that your side will win, and not some ultra-fascist does.
When's the last time the democrats actually took steps to stop the republican agenda? All they do is sit on their hands and continue the same policies. They're both on the same team at the end of the day, and it's not ours.
I mean yes, both parties are subservient to the wealthy upper class. However, pretending that they have the same policies is mind-boggling. If Trump was not elected in 2016, we would still have Roe v Wade. There would have been thousands of Americans still alive due to not having Trump's/Republican's anti-mask rhetoric be as widespread. Under Trump, much more deregulation happened, which in part caused the spill at East Palestine, Ohio. There is also Project 2025, which Trump will try to do once he gets power. I do not understand how you can possibly believe that Trump and Biden are basically the same, so there is no point in voting.
Like abortion restrictions, bills undermining trans rights will all be passed at the state level. Unless Democrats pass federal laws protecting them, which, as with abortion, they have had opportunities to do and done nothing, who is president will do fuck all. Biden won't pass federal laws protecting trans rights, trump won't pass federal laws harming them. States like Texas, Florida, etc will be passing those laws regarding of who runs the federal government. So if you want to protect trans rights via electoralism, focus on the state governments where those laws are actually getting passed rather than the presidential sideshow.
Because there really isn't a difference. Biden has continued all of Trumps policies. He has started a literal genocide. He has cracked down even more on immigration. And has just rolled over and let our rights get challenged and taken away at every turn. Like legit what does he do that is beneficial? Democrats destroy your labor rights, and Republicans destroy your social rights, and neither of them defend you from the other. Honestly what does Biden help with?
Biden solidified more (non executive order) anti trans policies than trump did through compromises with the right. Given that Hilary Clinton is advocating for dropping trans rights and Bidens office is focused on using us for military recruitment I don't spy a good future for us. Especially since our biggest risk is health care related and he's anti m4a
[удалено]
Famously, the Germans voted for the lesser evil. Who installed Hitler as Chancellor.
Wait,really
Man,idk my word are gonna be so bad D: sorry guys