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
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.
"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.
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.
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.