this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026

26 points (93.3% liked)

The Deprogram

1975 readers

74 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

airbusairnet@lemmygrad.ml

Ancient_Egg_57@lemmygrad.ml

Hakim on the American left. (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 1 week ago by Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml to c/thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They made him appreciate the French left for a moment! 🙏😭

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is not a commie analysis, it's sloppy complaining / finger pointing:

This is a funny statement coming from the podcaster left that tends to do little more than pontificate.
It's not going to suddenly "wake up" the Yankee left for them to be told by a podcaster that they are doing a shitty job and that others did more with worse conditions. That's getting into shitty individualist-style "tough love" dialogue.
The fact that other places had way worse conditions is part of the reason why they did a better job. Of course it's easier to turn people's disenfranchisement with conditions into education and organized revolutionaries when their conditions are godawful. Harder when their conditions are good enough that they still feel like they have a lot to lose and risk by opposing.
This does not mean people don't have any agency or blame, but vague finger pointing among "the left" doesn't elucidate anything or improve organization tactics. And putting the successes of the empire on the failures of the left in the imperial core is asinine. It completely removes the responsibility of the neocons and neolibs who have actively tried to organize for a more barbaric, exploitative world; who for decades have used imperial power to violently crush any chance at another commie project they can.

Can podcasters please at least try to set a good example instead of using their platform to voice whatever random thought pops into their head?

Edit for an addendum: "easier" is probably a poor way to put it on my part; what I'm trying to get at there is something like "more strategically feasible than otherwise." Not suggesting that living through hellish conditions and having to organize a revolution is in any way easy.

[–] LeninsLinen@lemmygrad.ml 33 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe this would be a worthwhile view if American leftists didn't keep on falling for dead-end entryist demsoc candidates (i.e Mamdani, AOC, Sanders, etc). No shame in falling for it once, but to learn nothing from those experiences and to continue letting momentum be subsumed into dead-end reformism for decades on end is most certainly a failure.

American leftists denounce Venezuala, Cuba, China, USSR, and Iran but get very defensive when it comes to criticism toward their domestic collaboration with imperialist organisations such as the DNC and DSA. More principled solidarity with anti-imperialist forces, no more dead-end moralist socdem entryism.

[–] Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think the comment by @Marat is an appropriate response. The "left" is a vague and ambiguous term that seems to often just mean liberals on social media.

Because in my experience the comrades in the core that do subscribe to revolutionary ideologies and are involved in organizing seem to have a clear-eyed view of figures like Mamdani and AOC. They understand pretty clearly that the goal of participating in elections is to disrupt and educate, not to funnel energy back into the Democratic wing of the corporate American uniparty.

The problem is the failure to build real political power in the imperial core due to a variety of variables. We can talk about accountability for these failures with the revolutionary left, but imo it would help to stop concentrating so much on how liberals are behaving. Lumping communists and anarchists in with liberals in these critiques is also just giving into the same framing that fascists set up anyway.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nothing you said refutes anything that I said. What you are bringing up is a worthwhile criticism (and notably, a specific criticism). However, it is also not the entirety of the Yankee "left's" history and present, and it still needs somewhere to go with it if it's going to be more than venting: For example, why do people keep getting caught up in soc dem politics instead of going further? Is it a strategic failure of commies? Are the material conditions driving people very strongly toward reform instead of revolution? What are the causes? Pointing fingers is easy. Figuring out why things are happening often takes more effort.

In the podcaster clip, there isn't even an attempt to do specific criticism. You took two short paragraphs to already elucidate more than this podcaster did in two minutes of rambling.

[–] LeninsLinen@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not here to refute anything personally. I am not disputing the idea that Americans aren't living in conditions that would make them as revolutionary as people in Algeria during the French occupation.

As for what Americans should do? Uh, gee maybe rally behind a principally anti-imperialist third party that doesn't focus exclusively on entryism. Despite my criticism of the PSL, it at least contests elections as an actual party instead of being a glorified caucus for the democrats in the way the DSA is. Either that, or Americans would have to loose a sufficient level of economic advantage before even considering alternatives.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

You said

Maybe this would be a worthwhile view if

that's what I was referring to when I said it doesn't refute what I said. You seemed to be saying that what I said was not a worthwhile view.

As for what Americans should do? Uh, gee maybe rally behind a principally anti-imperialist third party that doesn’t focus exclusively on entryism. Despite my criticism of the PSL, it at least contests elections as an actual party instead of being a glorified caucus for the democrats in the way the DSA is. Either that, or Americans would have to loose a sufficient level of economic advantage before even considering alternatives.

I would think most on here are already in agreement on that. That the soc dem imperialist stuff does not move the needle anywhere (or, not anywhere good). The how is more what I'm asking about. I don't expect you to have the answers, but it is a real problem to solve, not a magic fix.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 week ago (28 children)

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.

load more comments (28 replies)

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Every statement by every streamer is a test of Gell-Mann Amnesia.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is the first I've heard of this term and damn, what an accurate description of the state of most discourse online.

I always find this kind of take from podcasters like this interesting because, should we flip the script and talk about any other country outside of the "west" in a similar way, these same podcasters would chase you out of the room!

Could someone have correctly assessed the conditions of Russia, or China, or Cuba from outside? Could they have come to the same necessary conclusions to push their revolutions forward? I doubt it, and I doubt others would disagree here.

Yet when it comes to the imperial core, suddenly all conditions within the nations borders are apparent and our revolutionary assessor is clear eyed and is able to parse all the manifolds of the conditions under which the people within the imperial border struggle.

That isn't to say I have the answers by simply existing within these borders. However if Marxism is a science which can be adapted to any conditions and illuminate the path forward through its application in practice, then you must be within the space which you must practice in order to apply its theory. How does one put theory into practice in regards to the imperial core revolutionary path, from outside the imperial core?

Clearly, something is happening here in the core. The masses are shaking off the blinders of McCarthism, and searching for alternatives. The idea that they would find a principaled source of relief after this awakening is silly. The idea that this exact scenario wouldn't have played out, that opportunists and social chauvinists wouldn't have arisen to meet these conditions, is ignorant.

The question is, will an organization be able to harness this growing sentiment, so that they can shepherd people onto the correct path? Or will a thousand 2016 Bernie Sanders bloom?

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What is it that you mention?

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You ever read a newspaper article on a topic you know a lot about and think, "wow they have no idea what they're talking about?"

Somehow that realization doesn't carry over to the next article you read about something you don't know as much about.

This is the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, a term coined by author Michael Crichton.

Streamers as a rule also have no idea what they're talking about, ever, yet for some reason people keep listening to these morons.

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I do not read newspapers, and I do not remember experiencing that phenomenon. Also not surprising that streamers do not know much (are you criticizing Hakim and the others?).

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Be skeptical of the level of knowledge and level of care for reporting accuracy of streamers like Hakim and the others in this clip.

Numerous others in the thread who have a higher level of relevant experience and expertise than Hakim on this particular subject have disagreed with his analysis.

When someone makes little effort to formulate their statement yet speaks with conviction, they are often going to be called out for that bad opinion. You should also then assume the same lack of understanding in every subject they talk about in which they are not a subject matter expert. This is a core aspect of media literacy: skepticism.

Hakim is a physician. I would trust his input on the German healthcare system or general medical knowledge. If he is so willing to speak without doing appropriate research on this particular matter, it is likely that he gives the same lack of care to other matters outside his purview.

[–] LeninZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 5 days ago

Got it.

[–] chinawatcherwatcher@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You ever read a newspaper article on a topic you know a lot about and think, “wow they have no idea what they’re talking about?”

Somehow that realization doesn’t carry over to the next article you read about something you don’t know as much about.

i don't understand: of the course the realization doesn't carry over because you don't enough about the topic to say whether or not they know what they're talking about. are we to just assume that literally no one ever knows what they're talking about?

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My read of Gell-Mann Amnesia (dunno how close it is to the intended spirit of it) is basically a lesson about skepticism. That people are prone to forgoing skepticism when it's a topic they don't understand and then suddenly remember what skepticism is when it's a topic they do understand.

That said, my personal view at this point in my life? It's impractical to be skeptical about everything and the more important part is the trustworthiness of sources, especially based on the motives behind them. So if I were to do a broad brush criticism of the "influencer" types under capitalism, it would not be that they don't know what they are talking about, but rather that they have material motives to be more performance art than substance, in order to keep attention on them and keep making money. So no matter whether they know or don't know at any given moment, the motives will push them toward being more entertaining than substantive, more shocking than thorough, and this keeps attention through a kind of nurtured friction with the world outside their sphere of influence but does not lend itself well to thorough discussion, investigation, or developing cooperation. Through this nurtured friction, they can develop cliques (or in extreme cases, cult-like groups) of people who become increasingly separated from views that don't align with those of the influencer.

It can have its benefits, drawing people out of a manipulative sphere of influence into a different, healthier one. But it can also have an isolating effect, of drawing people out of one manipulative sphere of influence into another. Really depends on the situation.

[–] chinawatcherwatcher@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago

this sounds like an actual marxist interpretation of the cited effect. my concern with things like the "dunning-kruger effect" and similar theories is that they ultimately serve to reinforce the bourgeois notion that people (specifically exploited classes) are just too stupid to understand reality or anything in it. "gell-mann amnesia" takes a basic premise of the theory of knowledge, namely that we can't all be experts on everything due to the extreme complexity of reality, and uses it to pose human nature as being fundamentally irrational. if we approached everything that we didn't know with the skepticism it fully deserved, we would become completely nonfunctional. i hope it is obvious why this is significantly reactionary.

after all, there are plenty of experts that have deep knowledge about their fields that are fundamentally incorrect about the topics for which they have expertise. "gell-mann amnesia" implies that only those with expertise should be trusted for topics with which you don't personally have expertise. but, what about bourgeois economists, historians, psychologists, and the like? we all believe we are fundamentally more correct than them, even though i'm sure they would have plenty of specific arguments for why we're wrong, derived from their expertise. theories such as these serve to support the status quo; skepticism is never devoid of ideology. as you mentioned, the correct usage of skepticism is through the lens of a marxist class analysis: what are the material interests behind the information i'm consuming, and how do those conflict with whether or not they may be truthful? this allows one to be skeptical and critical of both entertainment posing as education, but also bourgeois experts.

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, the point is that you should assume that all that newspaper's articles or streamer's analyses are similarly inaccurate.

Experts typically know what they're talking about in the field their knowledge applies to. You should question the knowledge and motivations of media and content creators.

[–] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm hoping that this is at least somewhat coherent in what I'm saying here.

What is the American left? Or the left in general for that matter? And what does it mean for xyz to be at fault or complicit or to "sit them down and tell them to take blame when blame is needed."

Did the American left fail because...it willed itself to fail? I think that's my question, really. We talk about such things in this individualistic sense. Honestly it's very rare to hear about "the left" outside the global north. What is the venezualan left, or the Brazilian left, or the south African left? We don't talk about it like that, we talk about parties and organizations.

I think that's why we talk about "the left" of the global north. It's an easy thing to criticize, because it can be as wide or as narrow as you want. If you said the ANC or workers party in South Africa and Brazil respectively were "the left" and lumped in them with thr EFF and Brazils communists then it'd be laughable. However, here, PSL, FRSO, etc. Get lumped in with the DSA and democratic party as a whole.

There's no...strategy presented, and very little analysis. It's just venting. And that's fine, but what's the point then? If the point is to get someone to do something, then...who exactly is doing what?

This is also my confusion i have in who this is being communicated to. Who? Is it to PSL members? In which case they aren't under the criticisms of supporting Mamdani or whatever. Is it all Americans? Ok....good luck i suppose with that. Is it just anyone who calls themselves a socialist or a leftist? Like I said, broad and vague. When you sit someone down and give them tough love, the person sat down kinda has to be...real? You can't give tough love to a vague ethereal concept.

There's also this game of ping pong with arguments like this. Is it a material issue or moral one? If I say it's a material issue, then they will say it's a moral one, that Americans are psychologically incapable of resisting. If i say it's not a moral issue, then they say it's a material issue. We end up going in circles because, at the end of the day, this conversation doesn't have a solution besides "well they'll just spontaneously get better" or "they'll get glassed" or "the world is doomed" or "it doesn't matter" or, you get the point.

I really feel like you shouldn't be able to eat your cake and have it too. You can't divorce social democrats from the left and then represent them as the western left.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Honestly besides socdems there isn’t really a notable left faction in america. Proven by the entire left bending the knee to Mamdani.

Anyways there is a very large moralist appeal for imperial core penitence and not materialist analyses. And there is a lot of ego games of borderline moral OC adjacent territory to be the sole leftistest leftist.

Or just venting at white people and expecting not to act white.

For what is to be done…Honestly right now most americans don’t even know how strikes work (like yes you pay people to cover their expenses for example), so political education needs to start at the base and the right stratum of a revolutionary base needs to be analyzed.

[–] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't mind venting, I just think the distinction should be made, and venting is becoming increasingly common as a form of "analysis," at least online. If you go onto the deprogram sub it's pretty much that.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Agreed.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

(like yes you pay people to cover their expenses for example),

Strike funds weren't always available, and may not be now. What unions are left have been hobbled by laws that say not everyone has to be a member, and non-members don't have to pay dues, so they reap any benefits for zero effort and zero contributions. What I think is going to happen is things have to deteroriate to the point where people literally can not afford to work and can't afford not to work, as it was before unionization ever happened here. That means prisons, deaths, and now possibly denationalization.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Aka nothing to lose but your chains.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

An Iraqi is obviously at blame for not uncovering a game plan for the nation who destroyed his homeland and left > 1 million dead (the US leaned on medical journals such as BMJ/lancet to stop counting and investigating), and who knows how many more for generations with the effects of radiation.

I wonder what we should tell those who say the palestinians did not collaborate enough with the Israeli "left"; in fact what do the palestinians advise - they say Israelis please still collaborate with trade unions and go on protest marches, and keep on trying to get those settlers to symapthise with plight of the palestinians.

They go we know how the Israeli government has both been oppressive against you, the Israeli proleteriat, and also not that oppressive against Israelis in general which means the conditions aren't ripe for revolution at this stage so not much we can ask of you. They go we know in our deepest of hearts the Israeli proleteriat should not be blamed for what their bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie do.

I think Lenin opens up with What Is To Be Done with that.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

What an absolute nothing burger of a statement.

load more comments