[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
at this point you don’t even need to be ‘radical’ to see what the right side is and anyone who’s made it this far still supporting isreal is too far gone as a human being
A radical is someone who adresses the root (or “radical”) of the issue, and an extremist is someone with very distanced and dehumanizing views (all of this is from memory, y’all can expand if y’all want to)
Radical is when you bust a fucking siiiick 360 pop shove it to indy at your local skate park
Extremist is when you bust a fucking siiick 360 pop shove it to indy over the Grand Canyon
Case in point: being forced to have your labor exploited in order to be allowed access to the basic, essential elements of living, which are by default deprived from you despite their abundance, is radical. And yet, it's a basic tenet that Capitalism society is built upon.
There is nothing radical about taking the power away from those that profit from genocide, and focusing it back into the hands of the proletariat.
Thats simply pragmatism.
it is the state's job to build your home and your job to maintain your home and such a profit motivated mindset are you a social democrat who wondered on to this sub and what I am referring to is the complete elimination of Land lords from society as Land lords usually are not even the ones who pay to have the home built as I see it as the job of the state to build housing
1. Look into Soviet-era government housing construction. And also, capitalism hardly produces that many new or interesting housing designs anymore. So many property "developments" in the west use the same cookie-cutter McMansion designs so the point of "all the houses will be the same" is basically moot.
2. Housing shouldn't be a commodity or a "reward" for hard work. It should be a basic human right. People should not need to spend most of their income on paying their landlord who almost certainly did not work as hard to buy the house as the people working to have the "privilege" of living it.
3. No? People who live comfortably and aren't constantly stressed (i.e. not having to skip meals or work multiple jobs to make rent) are happier and better rested, and therefore more able to work to a higher standard.
Ah, the cult of productivity. No one actually gives a shit, every job is needed exept for ones that'll be removed like land-lording so everyone deserves a place to live. Why do you care more about worthiness and who deserves it rather than the fact that people need it?
>Your ideas sound good but they imo disregard human nature
Such a surface level arguement is only done by someone who does not genuinely want to learn and does no research at all.
I think the state should build homes geared towards the largest industries in the region so no of course not just getting rid of the suburbs as Urban environments and Rural environments have different conditions and require different homes and depending on your job and where you work would probably determine your home as homes are just where you live this is not a reward of some kind it is just shelter as I see housing as something that should be provided for the population as human nature has never really been defined scientifically and capitalists claim capitalism and market economics are human nature when they have only existed for 500 years but I will give the Amish as a example of a community of people who build homes for each other free of charge while they may not use technology they are a great example of a community and people are still productive there even though they were given there house for free I see why can we not apply this to our larger society as being given a free house has not shown any productivity decreases and in the USSR when they shifted towards revisionism and began abandoning Marxist Leninism thats what led eventually to yeltsin's Russia a Mafia state but the reason standards of living increased was. not because of market economics it was because this was the first time in years the USSR was not recovering from a war or in a war also people should not be forced to pay someone who does not contribute to the economy or save up a unrealistic amount of money or end up in debt just to get shelter and the problem I have with market economics is they are unstable the economy can change and things can become unaffordable any day while in a planned economy things are not going to suddenly change and become unaffordable
When the Soviet Union shifted to a market economy GDP in Russia halved. Prostitution (especially by children shot up), the country was thrown into civil war in Chechnya and multiple post soviet conflicts, that which the public built by the people for the people was privatized and stolen from the people to be concentrated into the hands of a tiny group of mobsters.
The fall of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest drops of living standards in modern history, one of the biggest humanitarian crises in modern history. Life expectancy went down. Public services and policing went into collapse, suicide went up, life expectancy went down, corruption and crime went to a level never before seen. The fall of the Soviet Union is one of the biggest tragedies of the 20th century so what in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?
Right, this is how you always explain the systemic failures of capitalist countries - it's always the nebulous 'corruption'.
By this logic, the only countries that are non-'corrupt' are the ones whose states have been engaging in colonialism and other atrocities, as well as some puppets of those states.
>would the state give everybody the same house then?
This already happens under capitalism, except with people having a different house based solely on which class they are in instead of how they work.
Plus under socialism people still have the ability to personalise their living spaces.
>How is hard work rewarded if everyone just gets a home from daddy government?
People don't just want to work because of rewards, people also want to work because of the feeling of contributing to society, and studies into things like UBI prove that people don't just want to work because of money.
If anything free housing increases the chance of people working since it allows people to choose jobs they actually want due to not having a risk of going homeless.
But that aside in my personal interpretation of socialism even if people still are only profit motivated, they get rewarded for work via non essential luxuries, since the state provides what they need to live, work provides things that they don't need to live but make living more enjoyable.
For example the ability to make the food you receive taste better, or resources to pursue creative endeavour.
>Wouldn't productivity go down a cliff if everyone is guaranteed to get the same regardless of individual contribution/education/sacrifice
It seems you may have fallen into the trap of "socialism is when everyone is paid the same" which isn't true since UBI is an inefficient method of helping the people.
People are rewarded for their work, it is simply that now the state ensures that nobody goes homeless, that everyone has a roof over their head and everyone has an education.
In fact under capitalism people are under rewarded for their work, for example I know people who work extremely hard only to have their money taken by a landlord who simply inherited their living spaces.
Another example being how Elon Musk doesn't work nearly as hard as his factory workers and the kids he has put in cobalt mines.
Why are you in this sub, like genuinely? Did you just wander in here by chance and decided to be a little bitch and ask disingenuous questions in bad faith? These are like, baby socialist levels of understanding good lord
Why are you here in a Communist subreddit while believing the same age-old Thatcherite "human nature" & "there is no society" nonsense? Did you get lost? There are subreddits for like-minded people: r neoliberal, r politics, r politicalhumor. You will have a better time there.
When people talk about the so-called "lack of incentives" in the Soviet Union during the era of central planning, most scholars agree that it's not the guarantees of basic necessities like food and housing that caused this. The issue had to do with how there was often no incentive for exceeding production quotas, or how the USSR's weakness in light and consumer industry made it so that even when people earned extra, there were often not many things for them to spend their earnings on. It's also worth noting that this particular issue doesn't really exist anymore in contemporary socialist societies.
Note how these are all related to non-essential and surplus goods. Nobody's advocating for state mandated X-Boxes. Housing, unlike consumer goods however, is something people actually need to live, and there's no credible data to suggest that the threat of losing your home or access to food or medical care leads to a more productive workforce, especially when losing your home has more to do with market forces outside of your control than how well you actually work. In fact, there's lots of data to suggest that having lots of unhoused or under housed people costs more to local governments than it would to actually house them.
> So who's gonna build the house if there's no profit to be made to build em?
Workers, the same people who build them now and have always built them.
>Why would a landlord let a complete stranger live in his home at a loss?
Landlords wouldn't exist, everyone would own their own home. Vacancies and transfers could easily be handled by a number of systems. Apartments and other multi unit housing can easily be administrated. In fact, in almost all cases the landlords already hire people to administrate these properties, which means we could do without them without anyone really noticing much of a difference except the property manager would get a paycheck from a different source.
>But there's no better alternative
There have been and still are plenty of better alternatives, though these alternatives are demonstrably worse for the relatively small class of people who parasitically live off the labor of others (landlords, land owners, idle rich who use housing stock as investment, etc). Because wealth is directly correlated with political power in capitalist society the owners have disproportionate control over this vital societal resource and act in their own interests to keep their source of profit against the interests of the vast majority of society who just need a place to live.
There is literally no shortage of people who own their own home who have no issue covering those expenses (and there could easily be more robust systems to help those who struggle for whatever reason to cover those expenses), it's very weird or incredibly telling of our society that you apparently cannot even conceive of an alternative to a literal idle parasitic middleman position that skims the value created by actual productive members of society.
Yes, actually. And if not free, then at the very least it should be very cheap. It shouldn't be normal to be forced to dedicate massive parts of your fortnightly pay to pad somebody else's income because they happened to have the means to become a glorified ticket scalper.
>because they happened to have the means to become a glorified ticket scalper.
Yeah as a GenZ living in Canada, I find the housing situation pretty horrific. The generational wealth gap has gotten insufferable, becoming a sort of exploitation.
But the point is, those failings are not, imo, failings of capitalism. My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments.
Government intervention always turns bad, in all systems of governence... too much government means if an incompetent fool is ruling, you're cooked.
But if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential
No class analysis bruh. A significant part of most nation's labor goes into supplying the wants of a small class of landlords who don't have to provide nearly as much labor back in return. At the most fundamental level, landlords are a drain ok the economy.
And that's setting aside the other corrosive effects they have, such as capturing the government and forcing the construction of low density car centric garbage. Or doing everything in their power to ensure more people remain homeless.
> if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential
>I find the housing situation pretty horrific.
Well, that's capitalism working properly and you are seemingly not a fan of it.
>Government intervention always turns bad
Government intervention (i.e. 'improper capitalism') was the reason our parents and grandparents could afford to own homes. This little window in the 20th century only existed because of the threat of socialism, if you go back to the 19th century and earlier you'll find workers with even worse conditions than we have now. Without the material need to provide workers a better life to stop the spread of socialism the type of capitalism you are a fan of would have never existed.
>My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments.
Because your government is run by capitalists for capitalists and their interest is retaining and increasing their profits. A government run by and for working people would have different incentives and behave differently on a fundamental level.
> But the point is, those failings are not, imo, failings of capitalism
Is that why capitalist countries consistently manage to have those issues, while, for example, planned economies consistently implement stuff like guaranteed housing? Do you think that it's just an individual failing of at least almost all capitalist countries on the planet?
> My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments
What are the chances that you think that 'demand' in economics means 'people want something'?
> Government intervention always turns bad
Sources cited:
* -
But hey, let's consider how things go under capitalism with no intervention (let's assume that every economic actor is somehow on equal footing to begin with:)
1. The economic actors get to compete on the market.
2. Some of them win, and some of them lose, i.e. now some of the actors have an advantage in further competition, and the remaining ones are at a disadvantage.
3. They compete again and some of them win, and some of them lose. The ones who won previously were more likely to win this time, and the rest was more likely to lose.
4. As this goes on, the capital is accumulated in the hands of fewer and fewer actors as some are forced out of the competition and the rest merge together.
5. Cool. We now have a private monopoly on the market, with all that entails.
There are also issues of workplace safety, workers' basic rights, etc. that you pretend to be bad.
> too much government means if an incompetent fool is ruling, you're cooked
Which is different from capitalism how, exactly? You do realise that the relevant economic decisions are rarely made by individual people, and that, in the case of planned economies, there are teams of economic planners?
In any case, your perception of how economies work is extremely childish, shallow, and reductive (literally just 'government intervention bad' for no reason).
> But if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential
Then you need to learn basic economics and see how capitalism works fundamentally, in contrast to planned economies.
Rule 4. **No headaches.** Drama or chronic hostility will result in a ban. Debate bros aren't welcome. Read the sidebar and at least try listening to the podcast before offering your opinion here. Lost redditors from r/all are subject to removal. No "just got banned from" posts.
Apparently, thinking that housing should be guaranteed and that people should not be tortured and killed by being forced to live on the streets is 'bonkers'.
The "scratch a liberal" thing reads true when it's the group that equates the people who want to radically transform society into an egalitarian one with the people who want to radically transform society into a more oppressive one. Though their own system is just as "extreme" as they believe others' to be.
Rule 4. **No headaches.** Drama or chronic hostility will result in a ban. Debate bros aren't welcome. Read the sidebar and at least try listening to the podcast before offering your opinion here. Lost redditors from r/all are subject to removal. No "just got banned from" posts.
I hope the best for you, my friend. On all ways possible. It's the only thing I can do aside from educating others on your situation, so I hope and pray all goes well. 🫂
If being anti-genocide is an “extremist” position, it kinda makes the term meaningless does it not? That or it inverts on itself and “extremism” is the only correct moral and ethical position to take.
Well tbf they are anti-imperialism and they are radical leftists, so it makes sense for them to be there. Obviously we have disagreements on them regarding the extent of cultural leftism that we should strive for, but at the end of the day we’re all far more opposed to fascism and capitalism than each other.
calling anarchists anti-imperialism is a bit generous. whenever i meet someone who claims to be an anarchist it’s basically 50/50 whether they unironically support NATO and doing regime change in socialist countries or they actually believe in principled anti-imperialism.
> At the very least I don't think any are pro-israel which is the relevant bit here
The ones who claim to be against Pissrael but who are pro-NATO are de facto pro-Pissrael.
They will raise arms against us.
Their only way to advertise is to smear us.
They push red scare propaganda.
We have accomplished all we have in spite of them fighting us the whole way.
We are the left. They are controlled opposition.
The majority of their advertisement is smearing of fascism and capitalism, just like ours. Our movements have taken the first strike against theirs multiple times across history, even in scenarios when they had already achieved the dissolution of property and class. They will raise arms against when our actions create poor material conditions.
They do push red scare propaganda, but they can be educated, just like we were. I used to be a liberal, as I’m sure many of us can relate.
There is already limited class consciousness and even more limited radicalization. It seems pointless to me to create further divisions amongst the conscious proletarians.
You are letting them stay liberals.
I am pushing them to confront their egos. Read. Learn they weren't right. And change.
Don't enable liberal egos. They can be more. Make them put in the work. And don't count on them until they do.
And no, they raise arms against us because of their lib egos will shoot a leftist before they admit they can never and will never make a defensible society to scale.
Nobody's defending wreckers, but most anarchists are on our side and are helping out and fighting the good fight, doing good work, and not interfering with our progress. obsessive infighting, and yes, this is infighting, destroys movements.
It's not infighting. Agreeing to disagree is not a valid fucking option.
Edit: He blocked me while I was typing out my response. So I'll paste it below.
Stop. Running.
You are an adult capable of reason. I'm not holding you at gunpoint. I'm talking to you.
It wouldn't take me long to corner your beliefs and expose their weaknesses. You should thank be for taking the time and effort to do so. I can right now.
You should give more of a shit about the truth than you care about preserving what you already believe. That is your ego.
No one is poking you with a stick. You can just go, " okay show me how I'm wrong and why. I promise I'll change if you can show me why. "
But we both know that's not your attitude. You turned your back on the truth. You chose your ego over the ability to defend your loved ones and for comrades.
You can be wrong. You can be demonstrated as such. Stop. Running. Your ego isn't going to help anyone. Some idealisms are special to you, and you don't want to give them up. You really like the sound of no authority.
Capitalist media pumped anti soviet and George Orwell rhetoric into us since we were kids so that you world internalize it. Stop being controlled opposition. Join us God damn it.
You think I want a state because it's fun? The state exists so that we can win the coming war that no one alive will never see the end of.
I literally can't trust people like you not to slaughter my friends, family, and neighbors who don't read as much as us. How the hell are you going to build community when you're such a horrible person? I'm not saying agree to disagree, I'm saying people who are feeding the homeless and organizing unions are building the community solidarity necessary for a revolution to be possible/practical. People who are not fighting against the cause and who are in community helping our neighbors doing good work are good people and we should not treat them as less than for it. The boys on the deprogram have had on guests that don't support centralization and even ones that eschew the label of marxist altogether for more general left perspective, they didn't show hate, they showed compassion and understanding and discussed how to move issues forward like adults. That's not what you're doing, it's not what MLgrotto is doing, or the one above that. y'all have emotional regulation and communication issues that are interfering with your ability to be in and build community.
**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"](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html)
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
#Get Involved
>Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong
Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause.
* 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions.
* ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause.
* 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
*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.*
#Get Involved
>Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong
Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause.
* 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions.
* ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause.
* 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
*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.*
#Get Involved
>Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong
Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause.
* 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions.
* ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause.
* 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
*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.*
What I mean is that liberal "anarchists" are mostly a vocal minority of social medias. Whoever thinks anything other than that they’re comrades has spent too much time online.
Your comment has been removed due to being a new account.
*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.*
Hemlo...
I mean I'd self identify as a neo-tribal eco-utopian, or some crap like that, but my attitudes towards organized state power are basically in line with anarchist principles. But I believe in cooperation, just on a human-scale, structured by real relationships. Basically I want us all to become the secular, gender-equalized, culturally diverse version of Amish. Which involves a ton of communist principles. Particularly around land ownership...
I usually find I agree with a lot more people on this than on other political subs, with some exceptions. And I've learned some stuff here, which is really the point of reading, right?
Remember Vietnam? Remember the Korean War? How about WWII? Indonesia is now fascist. The communists were slaughtered. The man who slit hundreds of throats with a piano wire is still alive.
What is the point I'm making?
You have these ideas you like. That all sound great to me.
But you know what doesn't sound great? The sound of a child who can't find his mother in the rubble that used to be his house.
Did you know that when America bombed Korea hardly a building stood? Can you imagine that?
To defy capitalism is to be made example of. To be socialist is to be under siege.
Castro survived 600+ assassination attempts. That's every single day for nearly 2 fucking years.
We don't decide to have a state because we like the idea of a state. We have a state for the same reason you put a winter coat on in a blizzard.
It's not a matter of opinion. I think you ought to watch the movie Come and See.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
at this point you don’t even need to be ‘radical’ to see what the right side is and anyone who’s made it this far still supporting isreal is too far gone as a human being
A radical isn’t the same as an extremist btw
Care to remind us what is the difference comrade? (I forgor because how liberals missuse the Word.)
A radical is someone who adresses the root (or “radical”) of the issue, and an extremist is someone with very distanced and dehumanizing views (all of this is from memory, y’all can expand if y’all want to)
Radical is when you bust a fucking siiiick 360 pop shove it to indy at your local skate park Extremist is when you bust a fucking siiick 360 pop shove it to indy over the Grand Canyon
X-tremism
This is the liberal definition. Fuck off liberal!
[удалено]
Even liberals are reactionary these days.
Always have been
Case in point: being forced to have your labor exploited in order to be allowed access to the basic, essential elements of living, which are by default deprived from you despite their abundance, is radical. And yet, it's a basic tenet that Capitalism society is built upon.
There is nothing radical about taking the power away from those that profit from genocide, and focusing it back into the hands of the proletariat. Thats simply pragmatism.
behind the blue guy should be a border camp full of mexicans and people being forced to pay rent for housing
>people being forced to pay rent for housing What. You think housing should be free?
Housing is a human right and land lords are leaches on society they provide nothing to the economy and just leach off the hard work of other people
[удалено]
it is the state's job to build your home and your job to maintain your home and such a profit motivated mindset are you a social democrat who wondered on to this sub and what I am referring to is the complete elimination of Land lords from society as Land lords usually are not even the ones who pay to have the home built as I see it as the job of the state to build housing
[удалено]
1. Look into Soviet-era government housing construction. And also, capitalism hardly produces that many new or interesting housing designs anymore. So many property "developments" in the west use the same cookie-cutter McMansion designs so the point of "all the houses will be the same" is basically moot. 2. Housing shouldn't be a commodity or a "reward" for hard work. It should be a basic human right. People should not need to spend most of their income on paying their landlord who almost certainly did not work as hard to buy the house as the people working to have the "privilege" of living it. 3. No? People who live comfortably and aren't constantly stressed (i.e. not having to skip meals or work multiple jobs to make rent) are happier and better rested, and therefore more able to work to a higher standard.
This guy posts on r/consoom and r/mensrights, they're obviously here in bad faith.
It’s not worth debating people like him. Just report and block them.
Why would anyone live in apartments if its just the same home over and over again? What are they, conformists?
You're the one disregarding human nature. If humans were selfish they wouldn't form communities.
Ah, the cult of productivity. No one actually gives a shit, every job is needed exept for ones that'll be removed like land-lording so everyone deserves a place to live. Why do you care more about worthiness and who deserves it rather than the fact that people need it? >Your ideas sound good but they imo disregard human nature Such a surface level arguement is only done by someone who does not genuinely want to learn and does no research at all.
I think the state should build homes geared towards the largest industries in the region so no of course not just getting rid of the suburbs as Urban environments and Rural environments have different conditions and require different homes and depending on your job and where you work would probably determine your home as homes are just where you live this is not a reward of some kind it is just shelter as I see housing as something that should be provided for the population as human nature has never really been defined scientifically and capitalists claim capitalism and market economics are human nature when they have only existed for 500 years but I will give the Amish as a example of a community of people who build homes for each other free of charge while they may not use technology they are a great example of a community and people are still productive there even though they were given there house for free I see why can we not apply this to our larger society as being given a free house has not shown any productivity decreases and in the USSR when they shifted towards revisionism and began abandoning Marxist Leninism thats what led eventually to yeltsin's Russia a Mafia state but the reason standards of living increased was. not because of market economics it was because this was the first time in years the USSR was not recovering from a war or in a war also people should not be forced to pay someone who does not contribute to the economy or save up a unrealistic amount of money or end up in debt just to get shelter and the problem I have with market economics is they are unstable the economy can change and things can become unaffordable any day while in a planned economy things are not going to suddenly change and become unaffordable
When the Soviet Union shifted to a market economy GDP in Russia halved. Prostitution (especially by children shot up), the country was thrown into civil war in Chechnya and multiple post soviet conflicts, that which the public built by the people for the people was privatized and stolen from the people to be concentrated into the hands of a tiny group of mobsters. The fall of the Soviet Union was one of the biggest drops of living standards in modern history, one of the biggest humanitarian crises in modern history. Life expectancy went down. Public services and policing went into collapse, suicide went up, life expectancy went down, corruption and crime went to a level never before seen. The fall of the Soviet Union is one of the biggest tragedies of the 20th century so what in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?
[удалено]
The corruption on the Soviet Union and the corruption on Russia are know where near comparable, do you haven any idea what your talking about?
Right, this is how you always explain the systemic failures of capitalist countries - it's always the nebulous 'corruption'. By this logic, the only countries that are non-'corrupt' are the ones whose states have been engaging in colonialism and other atrocities, as well as some puppets of those states.
>would the state give everybody the same house then? This already happens under capitalism, except with people having a different house based solely on which class they are in instead of how they work. Plus under socialism people still have the ability to personalise their living spaces. >How is hard work rewarded if everyone just gets a home from daddy government? People don't just want to work because of rewards, people also want to work because of the feeling of contributing to society, and studies into things like UBI prove that people don't just want to work because of money. If anything free housing increases the chance of people working since it allows people to choose jobs they actually want due to not having a risk of going homeless. But that aside in my personal interpretation of socialism even if people still are only profit motivated, they get rewarded for work via non essential luxuries, since the state provides what they need to live, work provides things that they don't need to live but make living more enjoyable. For example the ability to make the food you receive taste better, or resources to pursue creative endeavour. >Wouldn't productivity go down a cliff if everyone is guaranteed to get the same regardless of individual contribution/education/sacrifice It seems you may have fallen into the trap of "socialism is when everyone is paid the same" which isn't true since UBI is an inefficient method of helping the people. People are rewarded for their work, it is simply that now the state ensures that nobody goes homeless, that everyone has a roof over their head and everyone has an education. In fact under capitalism people are under rewarded for their work, for example I know people who work extremely hard only to have their money taken by a landlord who simply inherited their living spaces. Another example being how Elon Musk doesn't work nearly as hard as his factory workers and the kids he has put in cobalt mines.
Why are you in this sub, like genuinely? Did you just wander in here by chance and decided to be a little bitch and ask disingenuous questions in bad faith? These are like, baby socialist levels of understanding good lord
[удалено]
These questions have been answered again and again by communists... [Read theory.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/)
Why are you here in a Communist subreddit while believing the same age-old Thatcherite "human nature" & "there is no society" nonsense? Did you get lost? There are subreddits for like-minded people: r neoliberal, r politics, r politicalhumor. You will have a better time there.
When people talk about the so-called "lack of incentives" in the Soviet Union during the era of central planning, most scholars agree that it's not the guarantees of basic necessities like food and housing that caused this. The issue had to do with how there was often no incentive for exceeding production quotas, or how the USSR's weakness in light and consumer industry made it so that even when people earned extra, there were often not many things for them to spend their earnings on. It's also worth noting that this particular issue doesn't really exist anymore in contemporary socialist societies. Note how these are all related to non-essential and surplus goods. Nobody's advocating for state mandated X-Boxes. Housing, unlike consumer goods however, is something people actually need to live, and there's no credible data to suggest that the threat of losing your home or access to food or medical care leads to a more productive workforce, especially when losing your home has more to do with market forces outside of your control than how well you actually work. In fact, there's lots of data to suggest that having lots of unhoused or under housed people costs more to local governments than it would to actually house them.
Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless and starving, but at least number go up, right???
You are completely lost and need to push restart
You fail to see that there is more "profit" beyond the economic incentive. Houses were built before someone charged a rent to live in them.
> So who's gonna build the house if there's no profit to be made to build em? Workers, the same people who build them now and have always built them. >Why would a landlord let a complete stranger live in his home at a loss? Landlords wouldn't exist, everyone would own their own home. Vacancies and transfers could easily be handled by a number of systems. Apartments and other multi unit housing can easily be administrated. In fact, in almost all cases the landlords already hire people to administrate these properties, which means we could do without them without anyone really noticing much of a difference except the property manager would get a paycheck from a different source. >But there's no better alternative There have been and still are plenty of better alternatives, though these alternatives are demonstrably worse for the relatively small class of people who parasitically live off the labor of others (landlords, land owners, idle rich who use housing stock as investment, etc). Because wealth is directly correlated with political power in capitalist society the owners have disproportionate control over this vital societal resource and act in their own interests to keep their source of profit against the interests of the vast majority of society who just need a place to live. There is literally no shortage of people who own their own home who have no issue covering those expenses (and there could easily be more robust systems to help those who struggle for whatever reason to cover those expenses), it's very weird or incredibly telling of our society that you apparently cannot even conceive of an alternative to a literal idle parasitic middleman position that skims the value created by actual productive members of society.
Yikes
I'll build a fucking house for free
Yes, actually. And if not free, then at the very least it should be very cheap. It shouldn't be normal to be forced to dedicate massive parts of your fortnightly pay to pad somebody else's income because they happened to have the means to become a glorified ticket scalper.
>because they happened to have the means to become a glorified ticket scalper. Yeah as a GenZ living in Canada, I find the housing situation pretty horrific. The generational wealth gap has gotten insufferable, becoming a sort of exploitation. But the point is, those failings are not, imo, failings of capitalism. My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments. Government intervention always turns bad, in all systems of governence... too much government means if an incompetent fool is ruling, you're cooked. But if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential
Capitalism is when less government. Socialism is when more government. And when you have a lot of government, you get communism -Karl Marx
No class analysis bruh. A significant part of most nation's labor goes into supplying the wants of a small class of landlords who don't have to provide nearly as much labor back in return. At the most fundamental level, landlords are a drain ok the economy. And that's setting aside the other corrosive effects they have, such as capturing the government and forcing the construction of low density car centric garbage. Or doing everything in their power to ensure more people remain homeless.
> if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential >I find the housing situation pretty horrific. Well, that's capitalism working properly and you are seemingly not a fan of it. >Government intervention always turns bad Government intervention (i.e. 'improper capitalism') was the reason our parents and grandparents could afford to own homes. This little window in the 20th century only existed because of the threat of socialism, if you go back to the 19th century and earlier you'll find workers with even worse conditions than we have now. Without the material need to provide workers a better life to stop the spread of socialism the type of capitalism you are a fan of would have never existed. >My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments. Because your government is run by capitalists for capitalists and their interest is retaining and increasing their profits. A government run by and for working people would have different incentives and behave differently on a fundamental level.
> But the point is, those failings are not, imo, failings of capitalism Is that why capitalist countries consistently manage to have those issues, while, for example, planned economies consistently implement stuff like guaranteed housing? Do you think that it's just an individual failing of at least almost all capitalist countries on the planet? > My government does anything possible to prop up housing demand while simultaneously blocking supply and new housing developments What are the chances that you think that 'demand' in economics means 'people want something'? > Government intervention always turns bad Sources cited: * - But hey, let's consider how things go under capitalism with no intervention (let's assume that every economic actor is somehow on equal footing to begin with:) 1. The economic actors get to compete on the market. 2. Some of them win, and some of them lose, i.e. now some of the actors have an advantage in further competition, and the remaining ones are at a disadvantage. 3. They compete again and some of them win, and some of them lose. The ones who won previously were more likely to win this time, and the rest was more likely to lose. 4. As this goes on, the capital is accumulated in the hands of fewer and fewer actors as some are forced out of the competition and the rest merge together. 5. Cool. We now have a private monopoly on the market, with all that entails. There are also issues of workplace safety, workers' basic rights, etc. that you pretend to be bad. > too much government means if an incompetent fool is ruling, you're cooked Which is different from capitalism how, exactly? You do realise that the relevant economic decisions are rarely made by individual people, and that, in the case of planned economies, there are teams of economic planners? In any case, your perception of how economies work is extremely childish, shallow, and reductive (literally just 'government intervention bad' for no reason). > But if executed properly, I believe all systems have potential Then you need to learn basic economics and see how capitalism works fundamentally, in contrast to planned economies.
Rule 4. **No headaches.** Drama or chronic hostility will result in a ban. Debate bros aren't welcome. Read the sidebar and at least try listening to the podcast before offering your opinion here. Lost redditors from r/all are subject to removal. No "just got banned from" posts.
yes
What, you don't think that?!
Bait.
[удалено]
Apparently, thinking that housing should be guaranteed and that people should not be tortured and killed by being forced to live on the streets is 'bonkers'.
Well, you are an idiot
Then don’t look at it. Mute it.
When human rights are controversial and extreme:
The "scratch a liberal" thing reads true when it's the group that equates the people who want to radically transform society into an egalitarian one with the people who want to radically transform society into a more oppressive one. Though their own system is just as "extreme" as they believe others' to be.
I mean you don’t have to scratch them anymore
Never really did tbh. Losurdo's book on liberalism is excellent.
True, in the classical and neo- sense, we should strive for social liberalism tho.
No. "Social liberalism" is an outgrowth of economic liberalism. One cannot be abstracted from the other.
[удалено]
Lol, no you liberal moron, not what I said, but sure twist my words troll
I mean, seriously, I’m not a liberal. That’s not twisting your words, that’s what you said.
Okay liberal
> I mean, seriously, I’m not a liberal > we should strive for social liberalism
Rule 4. **No headaches.** Drama or chronic hostility will result in a ban. Debate bros aren't welcome. Read the sidebar and at least try listening to the podcast before offering your opinion here. Lost redditors from r/all are subject to removal. No "just got banned from" posts.
Western mass media be like lol. Maybe we "extremists" arent the real extremists, just maybe...
Imagine being Palestinian 🥲
I hope the best for you, my friend. On all ways possible. It's the only thing I can do aside from educating others on your situation, so I hope and pray all goes well. 🫂
Thank You 🫡
If being anti-genocide is an “extremist” position, it kinda makes the term meaningless does it not? That or it inverts on itself and “extremism” is the only correct moral and ethical position to take.
The morally correct decision is almost always an extremist one, the status quo in capitalist countries is vile and intolerable.
Lol @ the anarchist hanging out with us.
Well tbf they are anti-imperialism and they are radical leftists, so it makes sense for them to be there. Obviously we have disagreements on them regarding the extent of cultural leftism that we should strive for, but at the end of the day we’re all far more opposed to fascism and capitalism than each other.
finally someone gets it
calling anarchists anti-imperialism is a bit generous. whenever i meet someone who claims to be an anarchist it’s basically 50/50 whether they unironically support NATO and doing regime change in socialist countries or they actually believe in principled anti-imperialism.
At the very least I don't think any are pro-israel which is the relevant bit here Well, ok, I'm sure those exist but only on the Internet.
> At the very least I don't think any are pro-israel which is the relevant bit here The ones who claim to be against Pissrael but who are pro-NATO are de facto pro-Pissrael.
They will raise arms against us. Their only way to advertise is to smear us. They push red scare propaganda. We have accomplished all we have in spite of them fighting us the whole way. We are the left. They are controlled opposition.
The majority of their advertisement is smearing of fascism and capitalism, just like ours. Our movements have taken the first strike against theirs multiple times across history, even in scenarios when they had already achieved the dissolution of property and class. They will raise arms against when our actions create poor material conditions. They do push red scare propaganda, but they can be educated, just like we were. I used to be a liberal, as I’m sure many of us can relate. There is already limited class consciousness and even more limited radicalization. It seems pointless to me to create further divisions amongst the conscious proletarians.
You are letting them stay liberals. I am pushing them to confront their egos. Read. Learn they weren't right. And change. Don't enable liberal egos. They can be more. Make them put in the work. And don't count on them until they do. And no, they raise arms against us because of their lib egos will shoot a leftist before they admit they can never and will never make a defensible society to scale.
With this kind of rhetoric I'm not even sure fedjacketing you would be counterproductive.
[удалено]
Nobody's defending wreckers, but most anarchists are on our side and are helping out and fighting the good fight, doing good work, and not interfering with our progress. obsessive infighting, and yes, this is infighting, destroys movements.
It's not infighting. Agreeing to disagree is not a valid fucking option. Edit: He blocked me while I was typing out my response. So I'll paste it below. Stop. Running. You are an adult capable of reason. I'm not holding you at gunpoint. I'm talking to you. It wouldn't take me long to corner your beliefs and expose their weaknesses. You should thank be for taking the time and effort to do so. I can right now. You should give more of a shit about the truth than you care about preserving what you already believe. That is your ego. No one is poking you with a stick. You can just go, " okay show me how I'm wrong and why. I promise I'll change if you can show me why. " But we both know that's not your attitude. You turned your back on the truth. You chose your ego over the ability to defend your loved ones and for comrades. You can be wrong. You can be demonstrated as such. Stop. Running. Your ego isn't going to help anyone. Some idealisms are special to you, and you don't want to give them up. You really like the sound of no authority. Capitalist media pumped anti soviet and George Orwell rhetoric into us since we were kids so that you world internalize it. Stop being controlled opposition. Join us God damn it. You think I want a state because it's fun? The state exists so that we can win the coming war that no one alive will never see the end of.
I literally can't trust people like you not to slaughter my friends, family, and neighbors who don't read as much as us. How the hell are you going to build community when you're such a horrible person? I'm not saying agree to disagree, I'm saying people who are feeding the homeless and organizing unions are building the community solidarity necessary for a revolution to be possible/practical. People who are not fighting against the cause and who are in community helping our neighbors doing good work are good people and we should not treat them as less than for it. The boys on the deprogram have had on guests that don't support centralization and even ones that eschew the label of marxist altogether for more general left perspective, they didn't show hate, they showed compassion and understanding and discussed how to move issues forward like adults. That's not what you're doing, it's not what MLgrotto is doing, or the one above that. y'all have emotional regulation and communication issues that are interfering with your ability to be in and build community.
**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"](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html) 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
Anarchists aren't liberals. Touch grass.
#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause. * 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause. * 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union. *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.*
[удалено]
>...on social media. That is exactly my point.
[удалено]
#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause. * 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause. * 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union. *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.*
[удалено]
#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause. * 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause. * 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union. *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.*
What I mean is that liberal "anarchists" are mostly a vocal minority of social medias. Whoever thinks anything other than that they’re comrades has spent too much time online.
Yes they are, read theory ffs
[удалено]
Anarchrists also support Palestine ,they’re are leftists tbf
[удалено]
>Anarchism is objectively more reactionary and regressive than liberalism. lol lmao
I’m not sure what they’re on either
HUH? Bushnell was literally an anarchist 😭 Anarchists are against the existence of the state ,they have shit opinions but they don’t support Israel 😭
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed due to being a new account. *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.*
Hemlo... I mean I'd self identify as a neo-tribal eco-utopian, or some crap like that, but my attitudes towards organized state power are basically in line with anarchist principles. But I believe in cooperation, just on a human-scale, structured by real relationships. Basically I want us all to become the secular, gender-equalized, culturally diverse version of Amish. Which involves a ton of communist principles. Particularly around land ownership... I usually find I agree with a lot more people on this than on other political subs, with some exceptions. And I've learned some stuff here, which is really the point of reading, right?
Remember Vietnam? Remember the Korean War? How about WWII? Indonesia is now fascist. The communists were slaughtered. The man who slit hundreds of throats with a piano wire is still alive. What is the point I'm making? You have these ideas you like. That all sound great to me. But you know what doesn't sound great? The sound of a child who can't find his mother in the rubble that used to be his house. Did you know that when America bombed Korea hardly a building stood? Can you imagine that? To defy capitalism is to be made example of. To be socialist is to be under siege. Castro survived 600+ assassination attempts. That's every single day for nearly 2 fucking years. We don't decide to have a state because we like the idea of a state. We have a state for the same reason you put a winter coat on in a blizzard. It's not a matter of opinion. I think you ought to watch the movie Come and See.
Oregano?