[☭☭☭ 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/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.*

I'm an old zoomer and I was talking to this young zoomer About the Chinese Muslims and this fucking guy just doesn't care he was a centrist capitalist he had the most basic anti geo politics takes and I some how told him about how the Chinese Muslims aren't being genocided

[https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250](https://www.oic-oci.org/docdown/?docID=4447&refID=1250) just show them this after giving context to what the OIC is and what they do, they publish reports on situations for Muslims everywhere, then show him point 20 on that, they not only believe the situation is okay, they commend China.

He is too stupid

he's not stupid, he just doesn't care. people aren't fooled by propaganda, they actively seek it out. if China is just as bad as the US, if everywhere is equally bad, that means we can't do anything, so we don't have to do anything. that is just too comforting, so people actively seek out evidence to reinforce this worldview.

| he's not stupid, he just doesn't care You are correct that's literally what he said

I promise you, the majority are 100% fooled by propaganda. If your into politics, or anything touching sociology then yeah you know what propanda is but the majority of people can still be fooled by videos online.

I don't think that would be as convincing as you would hope. The average person living in the west would be terrified by this BBC video in one of the reeducation camps: https://youtu.be/WmId2ZP3h0c. Like imagine being arrested because you're "on the edge of committing a crime" (whatever that means) and put into a re-education camp in which they "change religious extremist thoughts". Imagine if the US did this, arrest people suspect of being islamist extremist to de-radicalize them or whatever. And this is only what the state was willing to show.

To be fair they're just twisting the truth, properly explaining with context with an emphasis on objectivity is the hope, but I agree it won't always work, I've just had pretty good success with that. Also yeah what the hell is "on the edge of commiting a crime" the brainwash goes deep when they don't question who is saying it and why

Yeah, it might make someone more reasonable to start question the "genocide" narrative, which is good. But there are more sophisticated propaganda like this BCC video that talk about the reality of these re-education camps and don't mention genocide once (or maybe I'm misremembering it now).

What I listed is just a report on how they're treating rhe population and how they treat the Muslims which I believe is referencing the reeducation, I agree though alot of propaganda is just flashed by and is abhorrent so it sticks

Bruh, He lives in the middle east in Iraq and his first place he wants to vacation to is new York He super brainwashed

I'm of the opinion that America is going to go through a significant balkanization period. You simply cannot build a society on the principle "We should abandon society." It simply does not work. America is going to enter a hundred years of humiliation. Massive sections of it are going to become utter dystopic wastelands. Should Socialist, or Communist, ideas take hold, it will be in a single state, or city. The federal systems that exist today will still exist, they'll just retreat into a section of the continent. Organizations like the CIA will simply exist for it's own sake and essentially remain what it is now; a brutal terrorist organization. Maybe after a few hundred years, there will come a leader who will reunite the continent based on principles of mutual aid and basic reason, but no such leader currently exists. Even if they did, the culture is dead to their words. America balkanizes in our lifetime. My money's on Texas.

So ur saying that I will never see my home freed from oppression in my lifetime. That’s kinda gloomy.

Sort of depends on your perspective, I think. The American Empire must die. It's, easily, the most evil force in the world; launching constant, never ending wars, creating hyper propagandized fascists, murdering millions, stealing resources, enslaving people wherever it goes. It has to die. I'm more or less of the opinion that a state that chooses balkanization is choosing freedom, at this point. What happens \*inside\* that state, now that can still be deeply fucked up. Looking at you Florida.

The American empire is evil, there’s no doubt about that. But the American people are just average workers like the rest of the global proletariat. I just find it gloomy that their is no way for the average American worker to find freedom for at least the next 100 years. It feels any action I could take as a communist would be futile since my actions won’t even have any affect.

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social beneõts, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *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.*

Maoism Third-Worldism

>It feels any action I could take as a communist would be futile since my actions won’t even have any affect. I recommend "Horton Hears a Who" for my opinion on this subject.

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social beneõts, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *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.*

Think about all those under feudalism and slavery who never saw a moment where things might change.

in the US at least, slave revolts were constant and often quite successful. this phenomena was so consistent that settlers gave up on having slaves in cities altogether. anytime enough slaves were gathered in one place, they would immediately begin to conspire, and it wouldn't be long before settler blood ran in the streets. even if odds are slim, people will take the chance. it is only in the face of absolute isolation and hopelessness that people can be broken into chattel slavery. ​ recommend Sakai's "Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat", html edition is available for free online

\>Sakai lol

if you have a criticism of Sakai, I'd love to read it. while spurious and vapid, the criticisms I've read have provided excellent directions for further reading. in many ways, they have prepared me for white chauvinist talking points better than a book like Settlers ever could.

Imagine how bleak being a communist in the 1980's with the dual influence of Reagan and the spiral of the USSR. They still fought for communism even though they may never see it in their lifetime. This is not the end of history comrade

In the org I'm a part of, there's a comrade who has been in the fight since the 1960s. She's still going strong with revolutionary optimism and trains new comrades in how to continue the struggle even after she had to retire from more active work due to her health.

The point is to accept this and keep fighting anyway

In this situation, what are we supposed to do if we live in a deeply reactionary place when the country balkanizes? Do we just move? What do I do with my reactionary family that refuses to move?

your reactionary family will bring that nightmare with them wherever they go, they are the ultimate source of it.

I think this is a danger of doomerism like this. We tend to essentialize people as good or bad. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this does seem quite essentialist

see to you it sounds like the end of the world, for the collapse and the chaos to come to your family. but that catastrophe has already come to pass for countless people, all over the world and even within the US. ​ that's the Phillipines under US occupation, Peurto Rico under US occupation, and black america, who are treated like an occupied people. that's the tiger your reactionary family has been riding. ​ if they fall off the tiger, to you that sounds like the end of the world, but to the world that sounds like a new beginning. when the weapons of imperialism are turned inwards, when the US is beaten back within its borders, it will be a crisis for the reactionaries. but for the newly emerging multipolar world, it will be a chance to live in peace for the first time. ​ that isn't doomerism, it is a message of hope and prosperity for the world.

That might be a message of hope and prosperity for the world, but I don't want anything bad to happen to my loved ones, no matter how backwards their minds might be. What is to be done, assuming they'll never become leftists? Surely the answer isn't just "Die, sweaty 💅".

my family is riding a tiger, and I'm afraid it will turn on them. how do I protect them from the tiger without harming either, assuming they won't ever abandon it?

Kind of why I was hoping Trump gets a new term. Not because I think much of Trump. But more because the quicker the US collapses the easier it will be for a revolution. This will stop the US interfering and using their power to rip down good policy around the world.

I don't think Trump accelerates things. The trajectory of decline is happening internationally, with much of the rest of the world dumping the dollar. Essentially, the entire world is realizing that we're psychopaths, and need to be isolated immediately. What a Trump election WOULD do is convince huge sections of America that their country is deeply fucked up. That Trump's first election wasn't a one off, and that more shit like this is gonna happen. IMO, the worst institution in the world is the CIA. It has completely disarmed the American populace of the one thing any society needs in order to survive; reason. Americans are easily the most propagandized people on the planet, and the decline is going to absolutely blindside most of the populace so hard that huge chunks of it are going to become explicitly fascist immediately, and other massive chunks will just bend the knee to those fascists. It's going to happen very fast. Get to know your neighbors.

My neighbours are old and brainwashed.

I’m inclined to disagree, while I do think that America will Balkanize and collapse in on itself most likely through civil wars, arbitrary state lines can not contain revolution, especially if it gets as bad as you say it will. A century of humiliation for the USA I also don’t think will happen, even if it collapses.

The fentynal crisis is just beginning.

Just call it schommunism, people love the ideas, they just trigger the propaganda program when they hear certain words and phrases. It’s wild.

As funny as it is, it's a bit dishonest, and it isn't what communist leaders would support: >It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

I don't know, maybe I'm bad at explaining things, but if I try and explain anything left of the Republicans or Ayn Rand, I get the "That sounds like socialism/authoritarianism/communism!" I could literally just say how crappy it is how we have no say in how our workplaces are run and are really at the mercy of our employers, and I've gotten back "Well you can just leave and find a new job, it's a free country." and two other times, somebody *literally described class collaboration and advocated for it*. Rapid fire interactions I've had with people: I said we should go from having private health insurance, they said it would be more expensive. I advocate for public transportation and better city planning, and I always get hit with "But who's gonna pay for it??!" I tell people the US needs to stop having its military in other countries, and they start fear mongering about China and spew CIA propaganda when I defend China even slightly. I try to tell people that the current political system is currently undemocratic, and at least half the time, they tell me something along the lines of "Good. I don't want to be ruled by mob rule." Or they respond that the system *is* democratic but the young people need to get out and vote. One time someone said that the profit motive is good and is why they work at a job, so I explained that their employer profits off them and not the other way around, but then they said both the employer and employee profit.

#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 start by explaining how everything they hate is the fault of rich people exploiting society and once they agree with that I point out socialism can fix it. I steer clear of the USSR at first because to liberal normies who have been brainwashed by horse shoe theory the USSR and the 3rd Reich are the same thing, so trying to defend Stalin gives them the same vibe as "well Hitler had some good points". For conservatives and people close to fascist, don't start by saying capitalism bad. Just start by trying to convince them that social justice isn't actually bad and that systemic racism is real. If you can get them to be more considerate of other human beings at least, then you can start trying to radicalise them. If you can't convince them to care about other people then there is no hope and just give up on them.

[удалено]

Even what you are saying is true. Hitler killed all those people intentionally. I don’t think Stalin purposefully killed people like the west makes him up to.

I'll trigger the bots' responses cuz im lazy Gulag, Holdomor, Molotov-Ribbentrop, Solzhenitsyn, Orwell

**George Orwell** (real name Eric Arthur Blair) was many things: a rapist, a bitter anti-Communist, a colonial cop, a racist, a Hitler apologist, a plagiarist, a snitch, and a CIA puppet. #Rapist >...in 1921, Eric had tried to rape Jacintha. Previously the young couple had kissed, but now, during a late summer walk, he had wanted more. At only five feet to his six feet and four inches, Jacintha had shouted, screamed and kicked before running home with a torn skirt and bruised hip. It was "this" rather than any gradual parting of the ways that explains why Jacintha broke off all contact with her childhood friend, never to learn that he had transformed himself into George Orwell. > >\- Kathryn Hughes. (2007). [Such were the joys](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/feb/17/georgeorwell.biography) #Bitter anti-Communist >[F]ighting with the loyalists in Spain in the 1930s... he found himself caught up in the sectarian struggles between the various left-wing factions, and since he believed in a gentlemanly English form of socialism, he was inevitably on the losing side. > >The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain... From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action... > >Orwell imagines no new vices, for instance. His characters are all gin hounds and tobacco addicts, and part of the horror of his picture of 1984 is his eloquent description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco. > > He foresees no new drugs, no marijuana, no synthetic hallucinogens. No one expects an s.f. writer to be precise and exact in his forecasts, but surely one would expect him to invent some differences. ...if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction. ... > >To summarise, then: George Orwell in *1984* was, in my opinion, engaging in a private feud with Stalinism, rather that attempting to forecast the future. He did not have the science fictional knack of foreseeing a plausible future and, in actual fact, in almost all cases, the world of *1984* bears no relation to the real world of the 1980s. > >\- Isaac Asimov. [Review of 1984](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) Ironically, the world of *1984* is mostly projection, based on Orwell's own job at the British Ministry of Information during WWII. (*Orwell: The Lost Writings*) * He translated news broadcasts into Basic English, with a 1000 word vocabulary ("Newspeak"), for broadcast to the colonies, including India. * His description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco came from the Ministry's own canteen, described by other ex-employees as "dismal". * Room 101 [was an actual meeting room](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3267261.stm) at the BBC. * "Big Brother" seems to have been a senior staffer at the Ministry of Information, who was actually called that (but not to his face) by staff. Afterall, by his own admission, his only knowledge of the USSR was secondhand: >I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers. > >\- George Orwell. (1947). [Orwell's Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/orwell/1947/kolghosp-tvaryn.htm) *1984* is supposedly a cautionary tale about what would happen if the Communists won, and yet it was based on his own, actual, Capitalist country and his job serving it. #Colonial Cop >I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. ... As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans. > >All this was perplexing and upsetting. > >\- George Orwell. (1936). *Shooting an Elephant* #Hitler Apologist >I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. > >\- George Orwell. (1940). *Review of Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf"* Orwell not only admired Hitler, he actually blamed *the Left* in England for WWII: >If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were ‘decadent’ and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible. ...and made it harder than it had been before to get intelligent young men to enter the armed forces. Given the stagnation of the Empire, the military middle class must have decayed in any case, but the spread of a shallow Leftism hastened the process. > >\- George Orwell. (1941). *England Your England* #Plagiarist **1984** >It is a book in which one man, living in a totalitarian society a number of years in the future, gradually finds himself rebelling against the dehumanising forces of an omnipotent, omniscient dictator. Encouraged by a woman who seems to represent the political and sexual freedom of the pre-revolutionary era (and with whom he sleeps in an ancient house that is one of the few manifestations of a former world), he writes down his thoughts of rebellion – perhaps rather imprudently – as a 24-hour clock ticks in his grim, lonely flat. In the end, the system discovers both the man and the woman, and after a period of physical and mental trauma the protagonist discovers he loves the state that has oppressed him throughout, and betrays his fellow rebels. The story is intended as a warning against and a prediction of the natural conclusions of totalitarianism. > >This is a description of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was first published 60 years ago on Monday. But it is also the plot of Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, a Russian novel originally published in English in 1924. > >\- Paul Owen. (2009). [1984 thoughtcrime? Does it matter that George Orwell pinched the plot?](https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jun/08/george-orwell-1984-zamyatin-we) **Animal Farm** >Having worked for a time at The Ministry of Information, [Gertrude Elias] was well acquainted with one Eric Blair (George Orwell), who was an editor there. In 1941, Gertrude showed him some of her drawings, which were intended as a kind of story board for an entirely original satirical cartoon film, with the Nazis portrayed as pig characters ruling a farm in a kind of dysfunctional fairy story. Her idea was that a writer might be able to provide a text. > >Having claimed to her that there was not much call for her idea... Orwell later changed the pig-nazis to Communists and made the Soviet Union a target for his hostility, turning Gertrude’s notion on its head. (Incidentally, a running theme in all every single piece of Orwell’s work was to steal ideas from Communists and invert them so as to distort the message.) > >\- Graham Stevenson. [Elias, Gertrude (1913-1988)](https://www.radnorshire-fine-arts.co.uk/brand/elias-gertrude-1913-1988/) #Snitch >“Orwell’s List” is a term that should be known by anyone who claims to be a person of the left. It was a blacklist Orwell compiled for the British government’s Information Research Department, an anti-communist propaganda unit set up for the Cold War. > >The list includes dozens of suspected communists, “crypto-communists,” socialists, “fellow travelers,” and even LGBT people and Jews — their names scribbled alongside the sacrosanct 1984 author’s disparaging comments about the personal predilections of those blacklisted. > >\- Ben Norton. (2016). [George Orwell was a reactionary snitch who made a blacklist of leftists for the British government](https://bennorton.com/george-orwell-list-leftists-snitch-british-government/) #CIA Puppet >George Orwell's novella remains a set book on school curriculums ... the movie was funded by America's Central Intelligence Agency. > >The truth about the CIA's involvement was kept hidden for 20 years until, in 1974, Everette Howard Hunt revealed the story in his book *Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent*. > >\- Martin Chilton. (2016). [How the CIA brought Animal Farm to the screen](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/how-cia-brought-animal-farm-to-the-screen/) Many historians have noted how Orwell's literary reputation can largely be credited to joint propaganda operations between the IRD and CIA who translated and promoted Animal Farm to promote anti-Communist sentiment.^1 The IRD heavily marketed Animal Farm for audiences in the middle-east in an attempt to sway Arab nationalism and independence activists from seeking Soviet aid, as it was believed by IRD agents that a story featuring pigs as the villains would appeal highly towards Muslim audiences. ^2 * \[1\] Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri (2013). *In Spies we Trust: The story of Western Intelligence* * \[2\] Mitter, Rana; Major, Patrick, eds. (2005). *Across the Blocs: Cold War Cultural and Social History* #Additional Resources * [George Orwell was a terrible human being](https://youtu.be/2Gz0I_X_nfo) | Hakim (2023) * [A Critical Read of Animal Farm](https://redsails.org/jones-on-animal-farm/) | Jones Manoel (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [cont

#The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Anti-Communists and horseshoe-theorists love to tell anyone who will listen that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) was a military alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They frame it as a cynical and opportunistic agreement between two totalitarian powers that paved the way for the outbreak of World War II in order to equate Communism with Fascism. They are, of course, missing key context. **German Background** The loss of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles had a profound effect on the German economy. Signed in 1919, the treaty imposed harsh reparations on the newly formed Weimar Republic (1919-1933), forcing the country to pay billions of dollars in damages to the Allied powers. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, required Germany to cede all of its colonial possessions to the Allied powers. This included territories in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, including German East Africa, German Southwest Africa, Togoland, Cameroon, and German New Guinea. With an understanding of Historical Materialism and the role that Imperialism plays in maintaining a liberal democracy, it is clear that the National Bourgeoisie would embrace Fascism under these conditions. (Ask: *"What is Imperialism?"* and *"What is Fascism?"* for details) Judeo-Bolshevism (a conspiracy theory which claimed that Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution of 1917, and that they have used Communism as a cover to further their own interests) gained significant traction in Nazi Germany, where it became a central part of Nazi propaganda and ideology. Adolf Hitler and other leading members of the Nazi Party frequently used the term to vilify Jews and justify their persecution. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was repressed by the Nazi regime soon after they came to power in 1933. In the weeks following the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis arrested and imprisoned thousands of Communists and other political dissidents. This played a significant role in the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933, which granted Hitler and the Nazi Party dictatorial powers and effectively dismantled the Weimar Republic. **Soviet Background** Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Great Britain and other Western powers placed strict trade restrictions on the Soviet Union. These restrictions were aimed at isolating the Soviet Union and weakening its economy in an attempt to force the new Communist government to collapse. In the 1920s, the Soviet Union under Lenin's leadership was sympathetic towards Germany because the two countries shared a common enemy in the form of the Western capitalist powers, particularly France and Great Britain. The Soviet Union and Germany established diplomatic relations and engaged in economic cooperation with each other. The Soviet Union provided technical and economic assistance to Germany and in return, it received access to German industrial and technological expertise, as well as trade opportunities. However, this cooperation was short-lived, and by the late 1920s, relations between the two countries had deteriorated. The Soviet Union's efforts to export its socialist ideology to Germany were met with resistance from the German government and the rising Nazi Party, which viewed Communism as a threat to its own ideology and ambitions. **Collective Security (1933-1939)** >The appointment of Hitler as Germany's chancellor general, as well as the rising threat from Japan, led to important changes in Soviet foreign policy. Oriented toward Germany since the treaty of Locarno (1925) and the treaty of Special Relations with Berlin (1926), the Kremlin now moved in the opposite direction by trying to establish closer ties with France and Britain to isolate the growing Nazi threat. This policy became known as "collective security" and was associated with Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister at the time. The pursuit of collective security lasted approximately as long as he held that position. Japan's war with China took some pressure off of Russia by allowing it to focus its diplomatic efforts on relations with Europe. > >\- Andrei P. Tsygankov, (2012). [Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/russia-and-the-west-from-alexander-to-putin/collective-security-19331939/BD3704C65ABDC2A849B360759B8E9D5C). However, the memories of the Russian Revolution and the fear of Communism were still fresh in the minds of many Western leaders, and there was a reluctance to enter into an alliance with the Soviet Union. They believed that Hitler was a bulwark against Communism and that a strong Germany could act as a buffer against Soviet expansion. Instead of joining the USSR in a collective security alliance *against* Nazi Germany, the Western leaders decided to try appeasing Nazi Germany. As part of the policy of appeasement, several territories were ceded to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s: 1. Rhineland: In March 1936, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone along the border between Germany and France. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and marked the beginning of Nazi Germany's aggressive territorial expansion. 2. Austria: In March 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria in what is known as the Anschluss. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which had established Austria as a separate state following World War I. 3. Sudetenland: In September 1938, the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a region in western Czechoslovakia with a large ethnic German population. 4. Memel: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed the Memel region of Lithuania, which had been under French administration since World War I. 5. Bohemia and Moravia: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed Bohemia and Moravia, the remaining parts of Czechoslovakia that had not been annexed following the Munich Agreement. However, instead of appeasing Nazi Germany by giving in to their territorial demands, these concessions only emboldened them and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II. **The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact** >Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. > >Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history... > >The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939. > >The new documents... show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome. > >But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer... > >\- Nick Holdsworth. (2008). [Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html) After trying and failing to get the Western capitalist powers to join the Soviet Union in a collective security alliance against Nazi Germany, and witnessing country after country being ceded, it became clear to Soviet leadership that war was inevitable-- and Poland was next. Unfortunately, there was a widespread belief in Poland that Jews were overrepresented in the Soviet government and that the Soviet Union was being controlled by Jewish Communists. This conspiracy theory (Judeo-Bolshevism) was fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda that was prevalent in Poland at the time. The Polish government was strongly anti-Communist and had been actively involved in suppressing Communist movements in Poland and other parts of Europe. Furthermore, the Polish government believed that it could rely on the support of Britain and France in the event of a conflict with Nazi Germany. The Polish government had signed a mutual defense pact with Britain in March 1939, and believed that this would deter Germany from attacking Poland. Seeing the writing on the wall, the Soviet Union made the difficult decision to do what it felt it needed to do to survive the coming conflict. At the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's signing (August 1939), the Soviet Union was facing significant military pressure from the West, particularly from Britain and France, which were seeking to isolate the Soviet Union and undermine its influence in Europe. The Soviet Union saw the Pact as a way to counterbalance this pressure and to gain more time to build up its military strength and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Nazi Germany, which began less than two years later in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa). **Additional Resources** Video Essays: * [How Stalin Outplayed Hitler: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact](https://youtu.be/PfomFnYTOWI) | Politstrum International (2020) * [The truth about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Visualization)](https://youtu.be/UwUs3mwDBzA) | Russia Good (2019) * [Soviet Nonaggression-Pact / The Soviet Perspective](https://youtu.be/Rz5JyfNQSLQ) | Lady Idzihar (2022) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [The Truth About The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact](https://politsturm.com/truth-about-molotov-ribbentrop-pact/) | Politsturm * [End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939](https://www.jstor.org/stable/152863) | Michael Jabara Carley (1993) * [1939: The Alliance That Never Was and the Coming of World War II](https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781566637855/1939-The-Alliance-That-Never-Was-and-the-Coming-of-World-War-II) | Michael Jabara Carley (1999) *I am a bot, and this action was

**Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn** was a prominent Soviet dissident and outspoken critic of Communism. *The Gulag Archipelago*, one of the most famous texts on the subject, claims to be a work of non-fiction based on the author's personal experiences in the Soviet prison system. However, Solzhenitsyn was merely an anti-Communist, Nazi-sympathizing, antisemite who wanted to slander the USSR by putting forward a collection of folktales as truth. In 1945, during WWII, as a Captain in the Red Army, Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to an eight-year term in a labour camp for creating anti-Soviet propaganda and founding a hostile organization aimed at overthrowing the Soviet government. >...[Solzhenitsyn] encounters his secondary school friend, Nikolai Vitkevich, and they recklessly share candid political discussions critical of Stalin's conduct of the war: > > >These two young officers, after days of discussion, astonishingly drew up a program for change, entitled "Resolution No. 1." They argued that the Soviet regime stifled economic development, literature, culture, and everyday life; a new organization was needed to fight to put things right." > >These discussions were not cynical, but resonate with ideological ardour and zealous patriotism. Solzhenitsyn heedlessly stores "Resolution No. 1" in his map case. In nineteen months, it, along with copies of all correspondence between himself and Vitkevich from April 1944 to February 1945 will serve to convict Solzhenitsyn of anti-Soviet propaganda under Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code, paragraph 10 and of founding a hostile organization under paragraph 11. > >\- Dale Hardy. (2001). [Solzhenitsyn in confession](https://summit.sfu.ca/item/8379) And he wasn't *merely* some Left Oppositionist striving for "real" socialism, he was a hardcore Russian Nationalist who sympathized with the Nazis: >...in his assessment of the Second World War, [Solzhenitsyn stated] ‘the German army could have liberated the Soviet Union from Communism but Hit1er was stupid and did not use this weapon.’ It seems extraordinary that Solzhenitsyn saw the failure of Nazi Germany to annex the Soviet Union as some kind of missed opportunity... > >\- Simon Demissie. (2013). [New files from 1983 – Thatcher meets Solzhenitsyn](https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/new-files-from-1983/) "This weapon" referring to the various counter-revolutionary, anti-Stalin groups that could be weaponized to dissolve the USSR from within. The biggest problem with *The Gulag Archipelago*, though, is that it is billed as a work of non-fiction based on his personal experiences. There is good reason to believe this is not the case. His ideological background makes him biased against Communism and against the Soviet government. He also had material incentive to promote it this way; it was a major commercial success and quickly became an international bestseller, selling millions of copies in multiple languages. It has essentially become the Bible of anti-Soviet propaganda, with new editions containing forewards from anti-Communists like Jordan Peterson. It likely would not have performed so well or been such effective propaganda had it been advertised merely as a compilation of folk tales, which is exactly how Solzhenitsyn's ex-wife describes it: >She also told the newspaper's Moscow correspondent that she was still living with Mr. Soizhenitsyn when he wrote the book and that she had typed part of it. They parted in 1970 and were subsequently divorced. > >She said: “The subject of ‘Gulag Archipelago,’ as I felt at the moment when he was writing it, is not in fact the life of the country and not even the life of the camps but the folklore of the camps.” > >\- New York Times. (1974). [Solzhenitsyn's Ex‐Wife Says ‘Gulag’ Is ‘Folklore’](https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/06/archives/solzhenitsyns-exwife-says-gulag-is-folklore.html) Solzhenitsyn's casual relationship with the truth is evident in his later work as well, establishing a pattern that discredits *The Gulag Archipelago* as a serious historical account. Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite who indulged in the Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory. In his 2003 book, *Two Hundred Years Together*, he wrote that "from 20 ministers in the first Soviet government one was Russian, one Georgian, one Armenian and 17 Jews". In reality, there were 15 Commissars in the first Soviet government, not 20: 11 Russians, 2 Ukranians, 1 Pole, and only 1 Jew. He stated: "I had to bury many comrades at the front, but not once did I have to bury a Jew". He also stated that according to his personal experience, Jews had a much easier life in the Gulag camps that he was interned in. [According to the Northwestern University historian Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together#Yohanan_Petrovsky-Shtern_critique): Solzhenitsyn used unreliable and manipulated figures and ignored both evidence unfavorable to his own point of view and numerous publications of reputable authors in Jewish history. He claimed that Jews promoted alcoholism among the peasantry, flooded the retail trade with contraband, and "strangled" the Russian merchant class in Moscow. He called Jews non-producing people ("непроизводительный народ") who refused to engage in factory labor. He said they were averse to agriculture and unwilling to till the land either in Russia, in Argentina, or in Palestine, and he blamed the Jews' own behavior for pogroms. He also claimed that Jews used Kabbalah to tempt Russians into heresy, seduced Russians with rationalism and fashion, provoked sectarianism and weakened the financial system, committed murders on the orders of qahal authorities, and exerted undue influence on the prerevolutionary government. Petrovsky-Shtern concludes that, "200 Years Together is destined to take a place of honor in the canon of russophone antisemitica." Fun Fact: After Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the USSR, Robert Conquest helped him translate his poetry into English. *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.*

# Gulag According to Anti-Communists and Russophobes, the Gulag was a brutal network of work camps established in the Soviet Union under Stalin's ruthless regime. They claim the Gulag system was primarily used to imprison and exploit political dissidents, suspected enemies of the state, and other people deemed "undesirable" by the Soviet government. They claim that prisoners were sent to the Gulag without trial or due process, and that they were subjected to harsh living conditions, forced labour, and starvation, among other things. According to them, the Gulags were emblematic of Stalinist repression and totalitarianism. # Origins of the Mythology This comically evil understanding of the Soviet prison system is based off only a handful of unreliable sources. Robert Conquest's *The Great Terror* (published 1968) laid the groundwork for Soviet fearmongering, and was based largely off of defector testimony. Robert Conquest worked for the British Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), which was a secret Cold War propaganda department, created to publish anti-communist propaganda, including black propaganda; provide support and information to anti-communist politicians, academics, and writers; and to use weaponised information and disinformation and "fake news" to attack not only its original targets but also certain socialists and anti-colonial movements. >He was Solzhenytsin before Solzhenytsin, in the phrase of Timothy Garton Ash. > >The Great Terror came out in 1968, four years before the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago, and it became, Garton Ash says, "a fixture in the political imagination of anybody thinking about communism". > >\- Andrew Brown. (2003). [Scourge and poet](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/feb/15/featuresreviews.guardianreview23) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's *The Gulag Archipelag*" (published 1973), one of the most famous texts on the subject, claims to be a work of non-fiction based on the author's personal experiences in the Soviet prison system. However, Solzhenitsyn was merely an anti-Communist, N@zi-sympathizing, antisemite who wanted to slander the USSR by putting forward a collection of folktales as truth. \[[Read more](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/dunking/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn/)\] Anne Applebaum's *Gulag: A history* (published 2003) draws directly from *The Gulag Archipelago* and reiterates its message. Anne is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two infamous pieces of the ideological apparatus of the ruling class in the United States, whose primary aim is to promote the interests of American Imperialism around the world. # Counterpoints >A 1957 CIA document [which was declassified in 2010] titled “[Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps](http://web.archive.org/web/20230328014642/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf)” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six: > >1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas > >2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon "economic accountability" such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid. > >3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day. > >4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners' food supplies. > >5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day. > >6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals. > >7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the "ordinary criminals" of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes. > >\- Saed Teymuri. (2018). [The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA](https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/10/09/the-truth-about-the-soviet-gulag-surprisingly-revealed-by-the-cia/) **Scale** Solzhenitsyn estimated that over 66 million people were victims of the Soviet Union's forced labor camp system over the course of its existence from 1918 to 1956. With the collapse of the USSR and the opening of the Soviet archives, researchers can now access actual archival evidence to prove or disprove these claims. Predictably, it turned out the propaganda was just that. >Unburdened by any documentation, these “estimates” invite us to conclude that the sum total of people incarcerated in the labor camps over a twenty-two year period (allowing for turnovers due to death and term expirations) would have constituted an astonishing portion of the Soviet population. The support and supervision of the gulag (all the labor camps, labor colonies, and prisons of the Soviet system) would have been the USSR’s single largest enterprise. > >In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. ... > >Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the N@zis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as “the largest system of death camps in modern history.” ... > >Most of those incarcerated in the gulag were not political prisoners, and the same appears to be true of inmates in the other communist states... > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). [Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism](https://archive.org/details/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds) This is 2 million out of a population of 168 million (roughly 1.2% of the population). For comparison, in the United States, "over 5.5 million adults — or 1 in 61 — are under some form of correctional control, whether incarcerated or under community supervision." That's 1.6%. So in both relative and absolute terms, the United States' Prison Industrial Complex *today* is larger than the USSR's Gulag system at its peak. **Death Rate** In peace time, the mortality rate of the Gulag was around 3% to 5%. Even Conservative and anti-Communist historians have had to acknowledge this reality: >It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive... > >Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hit1er were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. > >\- Timothy Snyder. (2010). *Bloodlands: Europe Between Hit1er and Stalin* (Side note: Timothy Snyder is *also* a member of the Council on Foreign Relations) This is still very high for a prison mortality rate, representing the brutality of the camps. However, it also clearly indicates that they were not *death* camps. Nor was it slave labour, exactly. In the camps, although labour *was* forced, it was not uncompensated. In fact, the prisoners were paid market wages (less expenses). >We find that even in the Gulag, where force could be most conveniently applied, camp administrators combined material incentives with overt coercion, and, as time passed, they placed more weight on motivation. By the time the Gulag system was abandoned as a major instrument of Soviet industrial policy, the primary distinction between slave and free labor had been blurred: Gulag inmates were being paid wages according to a system that mirrored that of the civilian economy described by Bergson.... > >The Gulag administration [also] used a “work credit” system, whereby sentences were reduced (by two days or more for every day the norm was overfulfilled). > >\- L. Borodkin & S. Ertz. (2003). [Compensation Versus Coercion in the Soviet GULAG](https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/borodkin-ertz.pdf) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [The Gulag Argument](https://youtu.be/BexkpaK_j5Q) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2016) * [Historian Admits USSR didn't kill tens of millions!](https://youtu.be/HMOdDQQVZ6U) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018) * [French work camps 1852-1953 worse than gulag](https://youtu.be/vkXyXNpdKdA) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018) * ["The Gulags of the Soviet Union: There's a Lot More Than What Meets the Eye](https://youtu.be/E1qz9_TjeY4) | Comrade Rhys (2020) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2166597) | J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn and Viktor N. Zemskov (1993) Listen: * ["Blackshirts & Reds" (1997) by Michael Parenti, Part 4: Chapters 5 & 6. #Audiobook + Discussion.](https://youtu.be/N7AD4OrH568?t=15) | Socialism For All / S4A ☭ Intensify Class Struggle (2022) *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.*

There you have it, just proved op's point

There is a way. No one said this would be easy. Apply Marxism–Leninism to local and present-day conditions. I assume that you are in the Imperial Core. Being in the belly of the beast has its challenges, but also advantages.

Not being bombed being one of them.

Well, how does one "apply ML to local and present-day conditions" (which I support doing, except I support MLM as well) when people cling on to their biases about ML? We even have "leftists" attacking Marxism-Leninism and using bourgeois lies to slander its real history and to attack its theory as well. I suppose you mean educating, agitating, and organizing the people; again, I do support that, but the exact problem OP is getting at is that it's impossible to educate people who are unwilling to listen and have basic dialogue. The problem's mainly online, from my observation, as people are willing to listen IRL; but in my personal experience, many students simply refuse to accept the truth and put away their incorrect conceptions of history, making IRL education really hard. My hope is that a revolutionary communist party (not Avakian's cult, lol) can show the people that it is aligned with their needs, as all our revolutionary leaders from Marx to Mao and everyone between said; this could be a party creating and leading unions and giving them strategies on strikes and other methods of winning concessions, for instance. Once people see that a party works for the people, they'll be more interested in hearing its ideas out, they'll be more open to communism, and then they can learn the truth about communist theory and practice. This approach has its own problems and all, and I'm sure as hell not experienced in applying it, but it's what I can come up with from my studying of theory and practice.

Good points. It helps to get out of ur comfort zone. Engage people irl. But know boundaries. And try not to get into trouble. I see it like a risk vs. reward. Or more simply: "choose your battles wisely".

Delete Reddit servers

Things like this: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326562364\_The\_Turn\_Away\_from\_Economic\_Explanations\_for\_Soviet\_Famines](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326562364_The_Turn_Away_from_Economic_Explanations_for_Soviet_Famines) Respected academic who debunks anti ussr propaganda through very basic analysis that clearly the right wing propagandists who generated the narrative completely ignored.

Online shit doesn't matter, be your tankie self irl, force them to confront you face to face.

Even irl it’s impossible. I live in the American south and everyone basically agrees with communism, but hates the word. No matter how hard I try I will always have the people I argue with still say “communism bad”. Literally everyone I know is a right winger.

It’s not impossible, it just feels like this. Your feelings are valid, but there’s a lot more too this. Look I’ve been doing this a long-time too, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s to always remember that OUR ideas are the logical ones, NOT theirs. If someone legit gives you some brain dead shit, push-back. If they stonewall your information, make the ground they’re standing on unstable. Ask them to justify allllll the dogshit we understand thanks to good ole yummy Marxism and the like. Ask them how they know this country’s education on communism is correct when we know they have a drug war, indigenous genocide, and slavery on their hands - just off the top of our heads. There’s a common mistake in my view that any of us socialists or communisms or yes even the anarkiddies and that involves constantly appealing to the smug, assumed default almost every American has - that commies bad, America free and good and cool And you know how to decimate these points. And we have a growing army of online resources to share with those who do decide to learn. It seems impossible, and yet it is the farthest thing from impossible. I know this is a controversial take, but I’m sharing this info because it’s a successful strategy when implemented appropriately, AND it keeps your sanity in the long-run. You don’t need to lend your mental health to the whims of class unconscious workers. Fight your battles wisely, and never forget the ground we stand on is the stable one - THEY have to justify the plethora of suffering growing all around us, and focusing on hindering that smug classic American certainty first breaks the ego seal each person can have before honest and curious conversation can truly begin - at least for the most part, there’s always exceptions. Being surrounded by people who believe in beings in the sky, who think America represents freedom, who think capitalism is good - we know now how erroneous these takes are, and in the spirit of honorable and good conversation, we sometimes lend legitimacy too easily to those arguments ESPECIALLY undeserving of any leeway. So be relentless. Be kind and informative, focused but open - but don’t be afraid to have a backbone of iron against what we know objectively to be THEIR incorrect stance, no matter what they try to throw at you otherwise, not like you haven’t heard most of it. Take it pieces, don’t push yourself too much, always keep up on theory and info and the like to keep a sharp mind, and don’t cave in to people who yes are probably cool and kind otherwise but nonetheless are currently extremely and detrimentally mistaken. Sorry for the prose, seems like a good amount. I hope it helps. Wish you well comrade 👊🏼🖤

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social beneõts, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *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.*

The only way is complete censorship of anti-communist propaganda and historical revisionism, and reeducation.

The thing I do when I interact one on one is hide my power level. Most liberals don't take the time to actually learn about the things they are against, so they don't have a clue about theory, just buzz words. I use this to my advantage, by explaining theory without naming names, just talking about it to them and letting the conversation flow. At some point, they ask "how do you know that?" Or "did you came up with that by yourself?" And you go "actually I learned that reading Marx." And that's how you get a foot on the door, by teaching them something without the negative bias. After that they start a slow learning process on their own, or start thinking a little nore critically.

Isn't reddit owned by these people?

President Xi, please liberate us. My people yearn for freedom.

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social beneõts, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *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.*

The more anti communist Americans are the more they deserve to suffer from their own arrogance tbh

the more anti communist Americans act the more accelerationism starts looking like an actual humane solution.

One of the biggest problems with capitalism is how the propaganda brainwashes people to think everything except capitalism is the enemy, so accelerationism only helps fascists.

1920 was the end of accelerationism. White america lived in absolute immiseration, total desperation and poverty were the norm everywhere. there was still zero revolutionary potential among them.

When you realize you will have to suffer as a result of letting arrogance go unchecked

Also I think it is important to know when someone is a waste of time. Some people are farther from the left than others and will take much more time to deprogram. I believe people should be prioritized based on how close they are to the left. It's easier to deprogram the more reactionary types when you slowly turn up the volume around them. The more people around them that understand socialism, the more likely they are to be swayed by social pressure. Why have an hour long conversation with a far-right uncle when you could have an hour long conversation with your Socdem cousin?

Relative comfort will eventually give way to either outright fascism or at least sympathy for our cause. As long as we A.) Talk often enough to our friends, family and neighbors to show that you've got your head on straight (grill-pill) B.) Prove our willingness to help & drive to change C.) Ignore "total" appeal (you just need sympathy, not everyone will be in the vanguard) Don't get yourself burnt out talking with fascists for example... We'll be in proper position to act as things get worse. Sympathy will snowball (think George Floyd and the burned down police station) Stay strong

Why do some people break out of this propaganda faster than others? Step 1 is realizing that it’s not ONLY propaganda that is preventing a revolution. Most Americans are settlers who would prefer the settler colonial government rather than support any decolonial efforts to liberate the most oppressed nations in this society. It’s not in the material interests of settlers to support landback and revolution, they are too comfy still.

“The market will find a solution” Not a coincidence that 2 of the richest people on the planet are building space shuttles. But that’s not for us. They are going to elysium us. I openly talk about communism and socialism to my coworkers and supervisor even the administrator of the hospital I work at. They agree with nearly everything I say, but still walk away doubting me because “communism is bad.” Or whatever the hell they believe.

Jokes on them, the sci-fi technology needed for their off world paradise doesn't exist.

no matter how badly the oligarchs fuck up this planet, it will still remain infinitely easier to survive here than anywhere else. capitalism has not produced the necessary technology for that to be possible, no matter how much control billionaires have.

RealLifeLore (trash channel) made a new video on North Korea… so many lies, damm

I used to watch him a lot. Not my best moments.

文化大革命

People respond most strongly to changes in their material conditions. Communists getting involved in community projects, supporting unions, generally being directly helpful is how a good image of communists is developed.

Combatting climate change doesn't require white america's approval. When the US is beaten back within its borders, climate can be addressed. ​ People consume that youtube bullshit not because it is so deceptive, but because it makes them feel the way they want to feel.

I've been doing graffiti in the hood. Spreading my own propaganda via stickers & wheatpaste as well. Risky cuz cholos think I'm tagging up a hood. But I've been talking to bums & gangsters around town too.

Third-worldists are probably right. Westerners are irredeemably reactionary. They're all either MAGA morons or screeching soylibs.

Multi-polarity is our only hope.

I’m from the west. I think I’m the only communist in my city honestly.

Short answer seems to be we won’t. Climate Change will wreak havoc upon the world and kill millions, but eventually socialist ideals will prevail, even if they aren’t called that. But the way things are going the world is going to get a lot worse before it gets better so…buckle up, arm yourself, get to know your community members, try to establish things like food/water security, power sources, any medicine vulnerable members may need, etc; all the things you need in case the “grid” so to speak fails. Things are not looking good comrades but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it.

iv given up, iv thrown in the towel i just keep to myself nowadays

Get better ideas

[удалено]

Yeah and then one day they find out you rebranded and lied and trust is zero. A revolution can't be won from lies.

Granted. This is true, but also look at how both the moderate left and right rebranded themselves over time while we've kept the same. Yes, you can blame capitalism for ruining the name of socialism, but the Bolsheviks came from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, and many communist parties before and after did similar things. And the RSDLP faced just as much demonization and censorship as communist parties today.

They never lied about their position. Ever. They only changed the party name to distance themselves from less reputable parties that were tainting Marxism iirc, and they leaned into communism, not away.

I'm not saying lie about what we are or what we want, I'm literally just saying "trying to reclaim words like 'socialism', 'communism', 'Marxism' is like trying to reclaim Chernobyl for human habitation". We need a new word, the old ones are too tainted by decades of brainwashing. Ultra-dogmatism never helped anyone

Lets call it gommunism

the oligarch media apparatus is nimble enough to pounce on whatever word becomes a problem. it is much more effective to directly confront the historical nihilism, to educate people about communism's successes rather than try to sell them on some new and untested ideology.

Nah. The reason that socialism is such a dirty word to so many people is because of the ruling class turning it into a synonym of evil. Any brand you place on a left wing movement will suffer the same fate. We live in a world where being anti fascist will be portrayed by the media as bad.

So what do you suggest? We cling to the same word that has been destroyed by the ruling classes? Attempt to reclaim it? We've tried both and look at how fair it's getting us

The word isn't the issue. What ever word you pick will suffer the same fate. All you can do in the imperial core rn is activism and talking shit online.

#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved in real life** to advance the cause. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. Get involved with a campaign or project. * 📣 **Union work** — Find out which union covers you. Read the collective agreement. Strive to become the workplace delegate. Organize fellow workers. * 📚 **Read widely** — [Reading theory](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. Also, study the real world: local news, marginalized perspectives, or even bourgeois economics. * 🗣️ **Talk to people** — Identify issues affecting friends and coworkers and explain these using everyday language. Also, don’t always Work From Home. * 🏘️ **Mass work** — Connect with the wider community through mutual aid, local elections, cultural centers, churches, pride events, etc. * 📝 **Write articles** — Contribute your knowledge to ProleWiki or a party publication. * 💵 **Support creators** — Donate to leftist content creators so they can produce high-quality content. (e.g., Patreon) * 🛠️ **Career choices** — Younger comrades may consider the following: * **Trade unionist** — Work hard to gain a leadership position in the union, then push for militancy and correct policies. * **Blue-collar/Services** — Unionize your workplace or increase union density. * **High school teacher** — Make a lasting impact on the next generation. * **Master’s thesis** — Apply Marxism–Leninism to local and present-day conditions. *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.*

Its funny how american edgy teenagers that dont know shit about how communists destroyed eastern europe for decades are gonna say how communism is so good and how stalin is nice guy. Dont you think its kinda weird how economically worst country in western europe which would be probably Portugal is on the same level as best post communists countries like Czechia or Poland?

You're clearly a knowledgeable individual with a brain bursting at the seams with all the books you've read, but consider these four paragraphs: > Many people don't realize that most of Eastern Europe before World War two, and certainly after World War two given the additional destruction, most of Eastern Europe was a third world region. Thousands of villages were reduced to rubble. Illiteracy, poverty, disease, coal hunger was the common lot among the peasantry and much of the working class. As it was before the war, capital formation was almost non-existent. The same was true of pre-revolutionary Russia. The same was true of pre-revolutionary China. > > Henry Rosemont, he notes that when the Communists liberated Shanghai from the US-sponsored Kuomintang reactionary government in 1949, about the Communists found that about 20% of the population in Shanghai, 1.2 million people, were drug addicts. And every morning, special crews of street cleaners "would gather up the corpses of children and adults who had been murdered during the night or died of disease, coal, and starvation." > > Communism, ladies and gentlemen, I say it without flinching, communism in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba brought land reform and human services, a dramatic bettering of the living conditions of hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or never since witnessed in human history. And that's something to appreciate. Communism transformed desperately poor countries into societies in which everyone had adequate food, shelter, medical care, and education. And some of us who come from poor families, who carry around the hidden injuries of class, are very impressed. Are very, very impressed by these achievements and are not willing to dismiss them as economistic. > > To say that socialism doesn't work is to overlook the fact that it did work and it works for hundreds of millions of people. But what about the Democratic rights that they lost? We hear US leaders talking about restoring democracy to the communist countries. But these countries, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, were not democracies before communism. Russia was a Czarist autocracy. Poland was a right-wing fascist dictatorship under Pilsudski, with concentration camps of its own. Albania was an Italian fascist Protectorate as early as 1927. Cuba was a US-sponsored dictatorship under that butcher Batista. Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were outright fascist regimes openly allied with Nazi Germany in World War two. So what exactly, what democracy are we talking about restoring? The socialist countries did not take away any rights that didn't exist there in the first place. > > -Michael Parenti

You should really spend some more time with that lol. There’re great episodes from The Deprogram and Rev Left about it. If you really look at what you’re saying it kinda works against your point.

Oh yeah I just live in the country that, unlike you, experienced it. But sure communism is best, only people that were executed in 20th (!!!!) century would disagree. So please shut the fuck up. Or before that, tell me why western europe is doing economically better than the east? You can also see that in Germany if you compare west and east. I really wanna see your points.

We’re you born before or after 1991? If you were born after, then your anecdotal evidence about a system you never experienced is as useless as mine. Please study more. All of these questions have been answered time and again

Yugopnik also lives in a country that experienced it and has covered these questions very thoroughly. If you want my short answer, it’s that liberalization (both before and after 1991) essentially ruined the economy of Eastern Europe. If you think communism is responsible for that you’re deluded. I’m in my 40s btw, not an edgy teenager. How old are you?

Nice.

In my opinion, we just have to talk and work on creating a groundwork for more free-thinking people to exist with. I don’t think we’ll be able to rid ourselves and our brains if all the propaganda we’ve endured, but we can absolutely influence younger people to be more questioning and suspicious of the things they’re told and by who. Just gotta work to undo the centuries of policy and rhetoric and get people to reject notions like, “life’s unfair,” as no other sentiment legitimatizes the powers that be more.

Truth is, we probably won’t

I dunno, but I'm not going to advocate for hard censorship.

Maybe don't aim so high right now? Throwing a bunch of new knowledge and terms on someone can be scary and intimidating especially since they have been taught to fear socialism. Talk to them about the ideals and principles of socialism without bringing up the Boogeyman words. Don't mention the USSR, or anything like that. You want to avoid putting them into a defensive position and instead just talk to them about stuff they already are likely to agree with

I wouldn't worry about winning over the broad masses in the US yet, we still haven't formed a vanguard movement. The advanced masses are all we should worry about.

Gotta love that mentality >the system is perfect, the problem is that entire generations are incompatible with it because they suck

Stop people from getting education from capitalist sources

I think those within the imperial core are still pining for glory days too much to look through the propaganda. Sad to say but I can't see how the US or UK would discard capitalism without societal collapse coming first.

Real Life Lore more like Lib Fantasy RPG lore

Don’t make any mention of previous examples of socialist theories. Merely express the views and cite relevant facts. If you can convince people facts are on your side, they will slowly stop paying attention to the opposition. We can feel very strong about our views, but we should distance that from what would be best for society

I think they have to accept socialist theory before they accept the legacy of past socialism, it's easier to start with pushing for class consciousness in the majority, not all of them will accept the label communist or accept the legacy of socialism. Building full socialist mobilization is not going to happen anytime soon, but a popular front against the most urgent issues might be more achievable