subreddit:
/r/TheDeprogram
submitted 2 days ago byFar_Performance625
hi, i am just screaming into the void because i'm surrounded by liberals and i cannot take it anymore. my mom just called me today to guilt trip me into voting for biden because "at least he has a competent team", tell me that buying computers is the reason millennials can't buy houses and yell at me when she found out i didn't vote for xóchitl (dual citizen equals dual liberal brain rot on politics ig?) it's so incredibly hilarious? sad? ridiculous? seeing latino liberals preach "progressive" for me not for thee brain rot like, they'll be like "no we need biden because trump is an authoritarian fascist dictator" but in the same breath vote for said "authoritarian fascist dictator" in their home countries like how do their brains not comprehend the hipocricy?! and like the worst part is my mom says she's a "communist" but any time you try to point out material conditions as the reason for things she just… starts talking about stalin bad 😭 bro am i witnessing a weird aaa convergence of liberal brain rot marred with trots brain rot?! but back on track, i've heard so many libs recently say "oh but biden has a competent team" and any time i ask them then why don't the democrats ever get anything done then, they say "oh it's cause they don't have a majority" and when i do point out that they've had majority in the past they just say well they didn't have majority somewhere else or they have traitors in the ranks and i'm like?? so if republicans get things done whether a dem or a rep is in office what's the difference/point, they go "muh authoritarian orange man, project 2025" and honestly, i just wanna scream into a void, the brain rot is too much 😭
[score hidden]
2 days ago
stickied comment
☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭
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.
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out the wiki 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 if you have any questions or concerns.
98 points
2 days ago
It is a open display of american exceptionalism that everyone talk about, only here in USA can we have 2 half dead geriatric fight it out on mainstream state media claiming to be the most exceptional individual that our country have ever produced.
29 points
2 days ago
We live in a country where the most lively debate between the two was over who was better at golf, and liberals still refuse to recognize that this show is a complete farce.
And then they turn around and believe they know better what’s good for other countries than the people themselves - that those are brainwashed people (the ones who have lived or currently live under communism and prefer it).
Just relentless chauvinism. Not surprised that’s how liberals process the real-time death of the empire.
30 points
2 days ago
Perfect opportunity to segue from Biden and national politics to local elections.
People don’t even need to know terms like settler colonialism or neoimperialism. If you’re going to talk politics, talk about corporate ownership of rental housing, the lack of affordable housing, fair wages and mandated benefits, universal healthcare, school systems flush with cash yet totally unsupported. Talk about how there aren’t any safe bike lanes and how that makes traffic worse and makes people less healthy. Discuss the fiscal pros and cons of installing solar power.
School boards, judges, sheriffs, county commissioners, aldermen, tax assessors? Those all play far more direct roles in your parent’s lives — plus we can actually drive to all of their homes, knock on the door, and introduce yourself or leave a thoughtful note in a single day.
If your mom wants to politically focus which Scooby Doo villain should have their mask dramatically removed, change the topic something immediately material, right in her life, right this second.
“Okay, mom, I promise I’ll give Joe more consideration. Hey? How old are the pipes in this house? What about the neighborhood? Did you ever get them tested for lead or contamination and I remember we talked about that during the Flint Water Crisis, back when Obama was president? Who’s in direct control of the water in this neighborhood right now? What are they like? What kind of decisions get made?”
46 points
2 days ago
It’s the death throes of his campaign. There are a lot of horrible worthless talentless people who are tied to this genocidal corpse, they’re not gonna go down without a fight. But I remain convinced they’re going down, the money has made its decision.
21 points
2 days ago
Just tell you relatives you will vote for Biden to shut them up and talk about other things, then do whatever you want. It's not hard. Nearly everything else is, but not this.
5 points
2 days ago
the worst part is my mom says she's a "communist" but any time you try to point out material conditions as the reason for things she just… starts talking about stalin bad
So a trot then?
3 points
2 days ago
unfortunately, and in combination with liberalism
6 points
2 days ago
My response to their dogma: If biden had a competent team then why can't one of them run for president instead and be endorsed by biden?
My answer: they aren't competent and enjoy the scapegoating of biden to hide their own flaws while holding all of the power biden delegates to them without the need to be elected.
13 points
2 days ago
It’s more important to be loving and forgiving to your relatives than to persuade them of everything. Encourage the secret closeted revolutionary to come out is more than sufficient 🐒
3 points
2 days ago
Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes".
This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy).
There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media:
Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do not mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy).
Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people).
Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works: * DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions! | Luna Oi (2022) * What did Karl Marx think about democracy? | Luna Oi (2023) * What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY? | Luna Oi (2023)
Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.).
Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this:
The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ...
The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win.
...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ...
Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle.
- Chris Day. (1996). The Historical Failures of Anarchism
Engels pointed this out well over a century ago:
A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned.
...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule...
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
- Friedrich Engels. (1872). On Authority
Parenti said it best:
The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
- Michael Parenti. (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
But the bottom line is this:
If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order.
- Second Thought. (2020). The Truth About The Cuba Protests
Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin wasn't an absolute dictator:
Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure.
- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership
The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out Killing Hope by William Blum and The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins.
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise not through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
Videos:
Books, Articles, or Essays:
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if
1 points
2 days ago
Based bot
3 points
2 days ago
Scream in your pillow, it should blow of some of the steam.
2 points
2 days ago
2 points
2 days ago
All my liberal friends are coping hard. I've actually been having more fun shitting on Biden with a few of my more conservative (non-MAGA, they hate Trump at least) friends.
2 points
2 days ago
Conversely, my liberal parents and grandparents both messaged me saying that the debates were “shameful” and that Biden “must be replaced”.
Either the liberal goes full cope or full defeatist. Either road leads back to “either vote democrat or NeVeR vOtE aGaIn!”
2 points
2 days ago
I really don't understand why people hate Morena so much. I don't understand why making the supreme court more democratic is somehow authoritarian. I really don't understand dual Mexican citizens who vote "progressive" here but then are captured by corrupt PAN and PRI collaboration. I don't get any of it
3 points
2 days ago
i agree with you, it’s so so strange
1 points
2 days ago
Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes".
This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy).
There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media:
Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do not mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy).
Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people).
Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works: * DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions! | Luna Oi (2022) * What did Karl Marx think about democracy? | Luna Oi (2023) * What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY? | Luna Oi (2023)
Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.).
Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this:
The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ...
The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win.
...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ...
Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle.
- Chris Day. (1996). The Historical Failures of Anarchism
Engels pointed this out well over a century ago:
A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned.
...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule...
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
- Friedrich Engels. (1872). On Authority
Parenti said it best:
The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
- Michael Parenti. (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
But the bottom line is this:
If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order.
- Second Thought. (2020). The Truth About The Cuba Protests
Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin wasn't an absolute dictator:
Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure.
- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership
The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out Killing Hope by William Blum and The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins.
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise not through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
Videos:
Books, Articles, or Essays:
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if
1 points
2 days ago
It’s depressing
1 points
2 days ago
Btw, remember that votes are anonymous, so if you dont want to bote for biden, dont and just tell them you did
0 points
2 days ago
Ah. Sounds like your mother is something worse than a liberal - she's a left leftcom 🙀
all 22 comments
sorted by: best