this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
26 points (93.3% liked)
The Deprogram
1975 readers
81 users here now
"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985
International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.
Rules:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
- Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.
Resources:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I respectfully disagree. The issue is correctly identified, it's up to my fellow USians to identify and try remedies other than signs with funny slogans. And maybe not everyone who wants to participate in a more meaningful way can participate in larger ways; but that in no way negates recalcitrant children indignantly slapping away the hands offering the medicine that would save their own lives.
By who? I hope you don't mean the podcast clip. Because I listened to it again, thinking maybe I had missed something. No. It is virtually identical to someone doing a bootstraps scolding "tough love" speech about a person's progress in life. It doesn't get into strategy or anything like that, at most vaguely alludes to doing an economic blockade in passing. He literally says that the bombs are the fault of the "american left" for not being effective! As if they are the ones pulling the trigger. How is this helpful?
My compatriots aren't even willing to investigate beyond what Bernie and AOC say, and rage at people who suggest they do. So yeah, while we're not personally pulling triggers and pushing buttons, we're all pretty complicit. And until that happens, we continue to be complicit.
No, I'm not going to victim blame myself and say I'm complicit for something I have no control over because I haven't bootstraps rallied the US to be otherwise. If you want to say people who know better and bury their heads in the sand are complicit, that's one thing. To imply people who do know better and haven't yet lifted the world on their shoulders are complicit is nonsense and I'm not going to put up with it on here or anywhere else. The west is never going to be moved by scolding. It just absorbs it as hair shirt penitential state of mind and keeps on doing what it's doing.
I'm glad you read all my comments and took them as a whole, rather than being defensive.
I am being defensive and am not ashamed to say that, and it's very much meant like that as a whole from my end rather than offensive. If there is anyone I'm going on the offensive about, it's the podcaster class, in order to defend from shitty takes levied by them. This thread is premised on a podcaster scolding an entire region's liberation movements, under the same broad brush, as if it's some message they need to hear that no one has ever said to them (surely this time telling them they suck will move the needle, no one has ever done that before). And it is a great example of the problems with taking these type of commentators seriously as "thought leaders". He can just mouth off and we are left with the fallout of whatever friction it brings up, while he doesn't even have to be here to defend what he said.
Please, take a deep breath in and slowly breath it out, non of us are enemies, it isn't worth getting so heated over some podcasters, Comrade.
Edit: just noticed this post was 7 hours ago, might have been pointless to post this, whatevs.
Tbh, I'm more weary than heated (including when that was posted), but there is some real anger in me about the idea of people listening to the words of people who aren't doing much of anything who are saying others aren't doing much of anything (as if they are in a position to speak well on it) and some of these types of people are making careers off of this sort of vague meta commentary which follows a drama-based snake-eating-its-own-tail cycle. It would be almost funny if it wasn't so sad. It's really a thing that goes far beyond political commentary in my observation of, like, the youtube sphere, for example. There are entire long videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of somebody else who makes videos and other videos that get dedicated to doing a takedown of a person who did a takedown of somebody else. And little to none of this type of thing has noticeable material consequences beyond drawing people into the drama spiral to take sides on it and expend energy arguing for or against their favorite persona. Much of it becomes another facet of profit-making, where the longer the drama goes on, the more money can be made off of it.
So there is an actual profit motive to stir the pot for "content". This is the kernel of it that probably gets the anger going in me the most.
I think it's okay to be irritated. I don't think comrades in the US should be coddled, but I genuinely do not think Hakim understands the specific obstacles that we face here in the US -- especially the immense mass material AND psychological obstacles we are up against. Have we failed, pathetically? I dont think it's necessarily unfair to say our influence has been pathetic. We gotta be honest about the state of things.
But this critique as some moral value judgment on people who are sincerely working hard to better things? I can't help but roll my eyes hard at this just like you (and I like Hakim and the Deprogram). I do think these podcasters do valuable work in making political education and analysis entertaining for people who are new to communism, but I'd argue most of them really have no idea what it's like to try to build mutual aid systems, organize brainwashed and burnt out coworkers, move in a way that makes organizing efforts accessible but also secure (I mean, a guy just got sentenced to 35 years in prison for moving a box of pamphlets for a protest he wasnt even at), or even trying to get people to stop buying a shitty cup of coffee. I genuinely don't believe they understand what it's like talking to your average Marvel-brained, social media addicted American right now.
The situations in early 20th century Russia and China were borderline apocalyptic for the people who lived in those societies, and those material conditions were what motivated people to give more of a shit. And while that's a bit reductive and that state of things is obviously no guarantee that things will eventually get better through a revolution/realignment/new progressive era, the US (and the rest of the imperial core) simply arent there yet. Imo things in the core simply need to get a lot, lot worse first. People gotta really feel like they have no other immediate choice.
Thanks for understanding. I'm glad I'm not alone in the feeling. I agree we do need to be real about how much and often liberation movements in the US have been dismantled or maneuvered into meaningless institutions that go nowhere, but yes, also, it is a bizarrely splintered and repressed situation as you touch on.
People can literally have different views based on what internet commentator they regularly listen to and there have gotta be thousands of them out there pontificating weekly. It does make me wonder if balkanization is more likely to ever happen than revolution. It's hard to unify people on stuff. You can get them to agree on some policies somewhat, but then there's a lot that is arbitrarily divided along democrat/republican lines (which is largely farcical divide and conquer to begin with, since those parties work for the same interests - not for you and I).
It also reminds me of that trope about how you can tell somebody in the US a bunch of socialist ideas without calling them socialist and they'll be like yeah, sounds good, and then you say it's socialist and they're like gasp, ew. The consequences of the Cold War and the Red Scare are no joke, and some of the original communist vanguard revolutions were carried out before the capitalists/imperialists really understood what communism was. Maybe they had an inkling, I'm not sure, but definitely not to the preoccupied repressive degree that they do these days. Of course they still faced repression and had to be careful around the law, and had various confrontations along the way. But I don't think they were facing such a planned media apparatus that explicitly seeks to be anti-communist. And certainly not one that was backed by global imperial power via high speed internet and near hegemonic influence over media across the globe.
The well has been poisoned to a ludicrous degree, in other words, and somehow we have to figure out how to get past that. I'm sure we can, somehow, with time. After all, many who hang out here would not be here if there weren't successful ways to "deprogram" people. But it's also an obstacle that is kind of unprecedented at scale. Lenin, Mao, etc. had difficult obstacles of their own, but dealing with high speed internet "fast food for the brain" was not one of them, so I don't think we're going to find much from them that addresses the level of poisoning of the well we're dealing with.
I dont think revolution is possible as the US currently exists. A political realignment or new era of progressive politics, maybe. But balkanization is much more likely than a revolution. Now, maybe within that there are socialist projects that are able to build from what remains. But I think the US will have to become more unrecognizable than what it is today.
That's not to say our organizing is for naught. We need to build our own political power and mutual aid systems in preparation for these moments.
And to your point, yeah, Lenin and Mao weren't dealing with the fact that every person has a little pocket spy that listens and tracks everything one does or says. They didnt deal with mass surveillance or algorithmic censorship on this scale. Communists back then had their own challenges for sure, but ours requires moving a lot differently while still trying to maintain our principles.
So what do we do? I'm content right now with waiting and trying to spread info as the US's military and economic might decays so that when it does weaken enough for change to be feasible we may know what to do.
I know this is vague, but it's the best I've got atm because I'm no Lenin: my advice is, look to what AES states are doing and have done, not only after creating a state, but before they ever had one. Look at how they struggled and the tactics they used to pull it off. Don't expect critical mass of support to lead to a revolutionary wave, but instead look to ways in which an advance can simultaneously become a retreat of the enemy as part of a larger struggle that involves lots of moving parts (resources, people, etc.) - this as opposed to the electoral mindset of viewing an advance as a sprint campaign effort win/loss of a candidate and then going to sleep for 2-4 years. In other words, look for ways that building up also means less to work with for the enemy. I might be off on the strict dictionary meaning of stuff on the following, but bear with me: revolutions are, in a sense, a civil war; the importance of framing it this way being that it is the transfer of internal resources from one power group to another. So it is as much about transfer and transformation as it is about victory and defeat in the more literal meaning in battle. So-called "dem socs" go wrong with this by thinking they can transfer power gradually without any confrontation. Communists must understand there will be confrontation, has been the whole time, and that navigating the confrontation without having to break a weak force upon a strong one is important.
I'm open to correction/discussion on any of this.
Edit: terminology
I have no disagreement with any of this. **US Soc Dems and Dem Soc ** are a real issue (a snakeoil salesman peddling a medicine that exacerbates the illness), and our compatriots who attack anyone trying to say this were my metaphorical children slapping away our hands when offering them the medicine that this is not the case. I in no way blamed you. You assumed the blame.
Undisguised medicine is slapped away. Medicine dropped on a sugar cube is equally or more violently slapped away. These are the US left I complain about. We can't even explain because they not only refuse to hear us out, but also call us "clever" names, and shout us down. Earlier today I was called a troll for saying the most outlandish thing, that Kaiser insurance has been sabotaging universal health since they threatened Nixon.
Now, more people are beginning to denounce "corporate Dems." Not nearly enough. So yes, it's up to us to convince them Bernie, AOC and Mamdami are also corporate Dems, despite a couple of treats for a few more people, and the conundrum is thus: if these wolves in sheeps' clothing don't win, it's our fault for splitting the vote, not voting, etc. If they do win more positions, the constituents are satisfied with a couple of more crumbs, stop paying attention, and become more complacent.
So it is on us (myself included), to find more effective ways to not only agitate, but also induce. I don't have any bright ideas right now and have paperwork to do without understanding, explanation or customer service. Be assured I'll be thinking of how better to induce, but I'll be honest, I haven't nearly the time or theoretical foundation I should have. I'll be looking to remedy that, while also attending to 3D and trying to pay attention to current events. That means less time in pointless arguments with "leftists," which brings me full circle.
Anyway I have things to do. Bbl.
Because you said:
It's not that I thought you were singling me out for complicity, but rather I'm pushing back against the idea that we're all complicit. It's not fair to you for it to come spilling out as passionately as it did in my response because it's about far more than what you said.
But for the sake of adding context as to why (extra context that has little to do with what you said and more to do with the podcaster clip), I'm kind of tired in general of people talking about people in the "US" region like they are monolithic and then choosing one of two binaries: either infantilizing them as incapable of accomplishing anything good, or making them larger than life schemers who know precisely what all evil the empire does and go along with it anyway. In times when this kind of binary, vague criticism is applied to a predominantly non-white, imperialized country, we would rightly call this out as a racist and reductionist point of view. In the context of the US, it is not racist toward white people (that's not really a thing) but it is a bit racist in how it lumps together, for example, black liberation with white working class efforts as exactly the same thing. And it is reductionist both in that and other ways, no matter how cathartic it might feel to angry people sometimes to imagine throwing the imperial core west in the trash, after all that it has perpetrated.
So I try to be understanding about it all, not take it personally, and let people have their moment to vent without saying anything. But it's harder to make allowances for podcasters, who have people who look up to them and look to them for guidance and insight, and so should be more careful about what they say, not less. More thorough and less flippant. IIRC, I mentioned that elsewhere in the thread. What example are they setting? If the example they set is being flippant about things, they're going to nurture baby "leftists" who are also flippant.
Anyway, I agree with you about the soc dem / dem soc types and I think it may be more useful for us to call them reformists going forward than to use the term "the left" vaguely. "The left" could range from a garden variety democrat to Fred Hampton, depending on whose definition we're using. So then the reformists are the electoral-obsessed people and the revolutionaries are the people who understand confrontation is inevitable and plan for that, regardless of whether they entertain any electoral attempts in the short-term. Or maybe it's better for us to just be in the habit of distinguishing tendencies (soc dem, dem soc, ML, etc.) though in the US, I don't think soc dem and dem soc are very different. Either way, "the left" seems to confuse more than it clarifies.
Good luck with your things to do.
Busted. I hope my last hurried post clarified that I mean it is on us to search for and identify more effective means of inducing people to at least listen to us. And I understand about being tired of criticism from those from other states either infantalizing or seeing us as a monolith; I think many of us have at least experienced similar feelings, that do pass, once we reflect on USians (whether ourselves, specifically, or plenty of others) have done that to people in the global South and East since US' existence. It may not be personally fair, but it wasn't fair to them, either. Life isn't fair, and as much as we wish it to be, it's a little bit childish to expect it to be. In truth, by trying to imagine myself being in the position our critics are and have been in for a few centuries, while it doesn't feel great, it does become understandable, at least; maybe not for everyone.
Perhaps ~~an angry~~ a thoughtful, dispassionate email to them, because while it's not upsetting to me, it clearly is for you. I kind of see his point (and I tend to not indulge in too many of those sorts of videos because we're all humans with good and bad takes, and devolves into arguments that detract from more pressing points, and because I don't have time. I do engage here, and I do laugh because sure it's cliché, while at the same time, I acknowledge things are cliché for reasons, some good, others not).
I don't even call them reformists, because it seems hugely understated. We do perhaps need to find and agree on a term less accurate, perhaps, than "blue maga," because while it fits the bill precisely, it's also inflammatory, and nothing productive has come of it since it appeared (it worked for some, but those are exceptions). I've been merely saying, "they aren't leftists, they're right of center," which also has our compatriots frothing at the mouth, because "that's how Americans use it." 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
"Reformists" leads to, "give it time!" And we don't have that. But this is as good a place as any to spitball more accurate, less inflammatory terms, and I hope everyone from everywhere will help us out with it.
Also this is kind of scattered because I'm annoyed with 3D happenings and overstimulated, but I want to let you know I hear and acknowledge your points.
Thanks for the luck, I did manage to get part of a thing handled, after several days trying, and only hope the bureaucratic ptb will handle their end of it as quickly as possible.
Ooof, this thread sure got spicy, sometimes it is important to remind ourselves we all want a better world. Peace and love, friends, allies, and Comrades! 🐱 💖
Perhaps "institutionalist" might work? The key difference between a Marxist and many of these reformists is that they argue that workers emancipation can be achieved within the already existing institutions, legitimizing them.
Just my thoughts on the topic of labels.
I like the idea of "institutionalist" over reformist, since as Maeve points out, reformist can understate the problem. And on further reflection, it can be seen too positively, as in "isn't it a good thing to reform a bad system?" Whereas institutionalist does not carry such a positive connotation and is more dispassionately pointing at the underlying political belief beneath the layer of PR positivity about reforming things.
I'm trying to think of even better, but all I thought of so far is originalist and constitutionalist which both have existing meanings, apparently. I do wonder though, in the US context, about a label specifically centering around putting the founding fathers on a pedestal, but I'm not sure what would fit. But I wonder because it does at least seem to be a theme that the stalwart believers in fixing from within also tend to believe in and legitimize the US constitution as a document enshrining popular rights, rather than a document enshrining bougie slave owner rights. And I like the idea of finding a term that directly pokes at that screwy belief.
Now you're cooking with hot grease!
Thanks. If you think of anything for a term for that type of thing, I'd be happy to hear it. Precise terminology encapsulated in a single word has never been my strong point.
You are welcome! I'm not sure it needs to be a single word, two or three would suffice. For instance, blue maga and ya*****n devils are precise, but it upsets liberals.
Beholden to XYZ doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Maybe "traitors to the constituents," captures the idea but doesn't roll off the tongue, either. Disingenuous Democrats? Dangerous Democrats?
Smiling foxes captures it well. Are we reinventing the wheel?
I like "smiling foxes", that's like the Malcolm X quote, right?
Maybe a bit, I'm not sure. But can't hurt to see if there's stuff that resonates more than what we're using, right.
Yes, it is Malcolm. No one who speaks truth to power seems to be appreciated until they're dead. The hero's journey, right?
And then the y******n devils sanitize and whitewash the story to suit their purpose.
😂 I jest, don't take it to seriously. Storytelling was meant to bind us together, not separate us. A NOI-offshoot sibling told me in their faith, Allah told righteous black Muslims to have compassion on the Y******ns, as they were a product of black endeavors, and they were to help develop whites toward righteousness and mercy.
I live in a neighborhood that is at once wicked and righteous, in our own ways. I get annoyed and frustrated, in my worse moments; in my better ones, I get it and feel angry and sad capitalism (paper/Mammon/Ba'al worship) led us astray. No one wants to listen, because it's a slow way to power, and it looks like timelines are rushing ahead of our personal and collective development. "We don't have the right to say we are tired of explaining." I suppose when I look at it that way and how tired I get off explaining and my own impatience, it puts everything back in perspective.
"Miles to go before I sleep."
I'm sorry I came off offensively, in our earlier conversation. It wasn't my intention, and thanks for calling me out when I said I wasn't attacking you, personally, when my wording belied my intention. I'm glad we're able to move past it and recenter our focus where it belongs, sibling comrade. 🫡❤️
I still have problems with letting things bottle up and I'm sorry you got an unfair dose of some of it coming out. But yeah, I'm glad we were able to come out the other side without hard feelings.
The timeline stuff can be weird. Maybe it's anxiety talking on my part, but I have times when I'm like "it's a marathon and we must take the time we need" and then sometimes I'll read about climate change or something and be like "yikes, do we even have much time?" I vacillate between wanting to have a healthy long-term view of the future and wondering how many of us have one if we can't change things ASAP. But then OTOH, panicking can lead to adventurism when the conditions and organizing aren't there to back it up. The whole thing reminds me of what people say kinda half-jokingly about marxist-leninists sometimes; how much they can be like Cassandra of Greek mythology, making true predictions but not being believed.
Completely understandable! I accept and appreciate your apology, thank you!
I don't think anyone who lived through the collapse ever thought it was rainbows and unicorns. There seems a balance may exist somewhere between optimism and grounded expectations.
"you want anarchy?!” to the "anarchist" idealists' delight?
I like the way you're going, though. "Traditionalist institutionalists," they could say, "Mamdami isn't a traditionalist!" Then we rebut with "voting is traditionalist," and we're back in the same big.
I like the way your mind is going, though, comrade! I'm a little bit drained and have to sleep soon, thank you for a good idea. Hopefully I can think more clearly when I catch a breath.
Thanks for taking the time. I'm a bit scattered myself, though that's pretty normal for me (ADHD brain probably). To reiterate the spirit of what I was trying to say in my last reply, my beef is generally not with how people talk here; and when it is, I try to take a step back and approach it diplomatically, even if I don't always succeed in that. What's more apt to put me over the edge is people who get put on a pedestal (such as podcasters) but who don't have the accountability or connection to organizing that a revolutionary leader like a Lenin would have. It's not a bad idea to try to reach out to them directly, but it's also a bit of a leaky roof problem and I'm not sure of the how in each case or if they would be receptive to criticism; as in, it isn't even on my radar most of the time and then I'm not sure it's worth the energy since influencer types can range from ignoring feedback, to reading it privately and considering it, to reading it publicly and considering it, to reading it publicly and dunking on it. But in general, it is good advice to try to confront these things at the source, so the point is noted.
That's good to hear.
Forgive me for resorting to other clichés, but it really is true: nothing ventured, nothing gained; fortune favors the bold, etc. So what if they dunk? They already are, anyway.
Oops: thank you, as well. I agree. Small wins are wins, and add up.