%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Authoritarianism

Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes".

• Authoritarian implies these places are run by totalitarian tyrants.
• Regime implies these places are undemocratic or lack legitimacy.

This pejorative 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).

• Why The US Is Not A Democracy | Second Thought (2022)

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).

[!NOTE] 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.).

• The Cuban Embargo Explained | azureScapegoat (2022)
• John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015

For the Anarchists

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 necessary 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

For the Libertarian Socialists

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

For the Liberals

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

Conclusion

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.

Additional Resources

Videos:

• Michael Parenti on Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries
• Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder | Hakim (2020) Archive
• What are tankies? (why are they like that?) | Hakim (2023)
• Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse | The Deprogram (2023)
• Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston | Actually Existing Socialism (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism | Michael Parenti (1997)
• State and Revolution | V. I. Lenin (1918)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Revisionism

Revisionism refers to the explicit or implicit attempt at revising the fundamental premises of Marxist theory. Often this is done in attempt to make alliances with the bourgeoisie or to render a working class movement impotent. Explicit revisionism clearly states that Marxism is wrong or outdated and needs to be changed. Implicit revisionism is harder to notice because it claims to still be Marxist, but in actuality puts forward positions that are counter to Marxist theory.

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

— Karl Marx. (1845) Theses On Feuerbach

Although there is ongoing debate and discussion within Marxist circles about how these principles should be interpreted and applied in specific historical contexts, there are several key tenets that are generally considered to be central to Marxist theory and which are not subject to revision:

1. Dialectical Materialism: The idea that everything is in a state of constant flux, driven by a process of contradictions and conflicts which are an inherent part of the natural and social world.
2. Historical Materialism: The understanding that material conditions and class relations are the driving force behind historical development.
3. Surplus Labor and the Law of Value: The concept that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor that has been expended in producing it. Profits are derived from the surplus value extracted from the worker.

From these fundamental premises follow a series of conclusions, which informs our understanding of the world and teaches us how to affect change. Revisionism alters these fundamental premises or rejects the conclusions that follow from them, the most important of these being the need for revolution.

The events of the Paris Commune and the October Revolution demonstrated the role and necessity of revolution, and provided important lessons in establishing and defending a revolutionary movement. Revolution is not just a means of seizing political power, but of fundamentally transforming society and creating a new social order. Revolutions must be defended against counter-revolutionary forces both from within and without. The movement must be organized and disciplined, and must be able to defend itself against attacks from reactionary forces.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Right Opportunism

Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack ‘dogmatism’. But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people’s democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction. After the basic victory of the socialist revolution in our country, there are still a number of people who vainly hope to restore the capitalist system and fight the working class on every front, including the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists.

— Mao Zedong. (1957). On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People

Right opportunism is a political tendency that seeks to make concessions to the bourgeois ruling class in order to maintain or achieve political power. This tendency is often associated with a lack of commitment to revolutionary change and a willingness to compromise on fundamental principles in order to realize short-term gains. Right opportunists may advocate for policies that are not in the long-term interest of the working class, such as supporting capitalist reforms or forming alliances with capitalist parties. This can lead to a weakening of the revolutionary potential of the working class and a failure to achieve real social change. Right opportunism is seen as a deviation from the Marxist principle of class struggle and a betrayal of the interests of the working class.

Trade Unionism is an example of right opportunism as unions focus on limited concessions, rather than advocating for the long-term interests of the working class as a whole. They negotiate with employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions for their members, but do not challenge the fundamental power relations between labour and capital. Union bosses make compromises or alliances with capitalist parties in order to achieve these concessions.

This creates a privileged layer of the working class who are more interested in defending their own privileges than in fighting for the liberation of the working class as a whole. This labour aristocracy is a barrier to the development of revolutionary consciousness among the working class because it prefers the status quo to radical political movements that seek to overthrow it.

Case Study #1: Social Democracy

One of the first revisionists was Eduard Bernstein, a leading theorist and prominent member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), who argued that the gradual extension of social welfare programs and the reform of capitalist institutions could lead to a peaceful transition to socialism, without the need for a violent revolution. This was in sharp contrast to the German Communist Party (KPD). There are two historical events which underscore this fundamental divide:

1. The Spartacist Uprising: Rosa Luxemburg was a prominent Marxist theorist and leader of the left-wing revolutionary movement in Germany. She was a fierce critic of the SPD's moderate reformist politics and its decision to support Germany's involvement in World War I. In January 1919, following the collapse of the German monarchy, a left-wing revolutionary movement emerged in Berlin, and Luxemburg played a leading role in the movement. The movement challenged the authority of the new Social Democratic-led government and sought to establish a socialist republic. On January 15, 1919, the SPD government ordered the army and the Freikorps, a right-wing paramilitary group, to suppress the revolutionary movement. Luxemburg and her comrade Karl Liebknecht were arrested, beaten, and executed by the Freikorps.
2. The Enabling Act: The Nazis rose to absolute power in 1933 with the passing of the Enabling Act. The KPD were absent from the vote because the party had been banned and its members imprisoned or in hiding. The SPD were present and voted against it. The SPD was subsequently banned and many of its members were arrested, tortured, and killed by the Nazis, while others were forced into exile or went into hiding.

Case Study #2: Democratic Socialism

Salvador Allende was a socialist politician who was elected president of Chile in 1970, becoming the first Marxist to be elected to the presidency in a liberal democracy. In power, he pursued a program of radical reform, including the nationalization of key industries, the redistribution of land, and the expansion of social welfare programs. His government was supported by a coalition of left-wing parties, including the Chilean Communist Party, and was seen as a model for peaceful democratic socialist transition. However, Allende's reforms faced opposition from powerful domestic and international forces, including right-wing politicians, the military, and the United States government. In 1973, Allende's government was overthrown in a US-backed military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet, who established a brutal Fascist dictatorship that lasted for years.

In "The State and Revolution", Lenin explained why the capitalist state could not be reformed or co-opted for the purposes of Socialism, but had to be destroyed and replaced by a new proletarian state. Allende's failure to apprehend this lesson proved fatal. His reliance on the existing bourgeois state apparatus as well as his failure to implement more radical measures, such as the establishment of workers' councils or the arming of the proletariat, left him vulnerable to counterrevolutionary forces.​

“If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.”

— George Carlin

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Why Social Democracy Isn't Good Enough | Second Thought (2023)
• Why Democratic Socialism Isn’t Enough | Marxism Today (2022)
• "The US Doesn't Meddle In Foreign Affairs" | Second Thought (2021)
• Electoralism Always Fails, Now What? | Hakim (2019)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Reform or Revolution | Rosa Luxemburg (1900)
• Marxism and Revisionism | V. I. Lenin (1908)

Podcasts:

• Episode 3 - Reform or Revolution | The Deprogram (2022)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Capitalist Imperialism

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.

Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.

Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.

When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.

Features

Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:

1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.

In Practice

So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.

These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.

Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.

Anti-Imperialism

The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.

It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.

During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism | The Marxist Project (2019)
• What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101 | Marxism Today (2022)
• How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy | Hakim (2020) Archive
• How Capitalism Robs the Developing World | Second Thought (2022)
• 4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism | The Peace Report (2022)
• Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism) | Hakim (2023) Archive
• Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production | The Marxist Project (2022)
• This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You | Hakim (2023)
• The Myth Of Capitalist Peace | Second Thought (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism | V. I. Lenin (1917)
• Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
• The IMF debt trap in Ukraine | Amanda Yee (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Fascism

To understand Fascism, one must first understand Capitalism. There are three primary characteristics of Capitalism:

1. Private ownership of the Means of Production
2. Commodity Production
3. Wage Labour

The essence of the Capitalist mode of production is that someone who owns means of production will hire a wage labourer to work in order to produce commodities to sell for profit. Marxists identify economic classes based on this division. Those who own and hire are the Bourgeoisie. Those who do not own and work are the Proletariat. There is far more nuance than just this, but these are the bare essentials. The principal contradiction of Capitalism is that the Bourgeoisie wants to pay the workers as little as possible for as much work as possible, whereas the Proletariat wants to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible.

Fascism is a form of Capitalist rule in which the Bourgeoisie use open, violent terror against the Proletariat. It is an ideology which emerges as a response to the inevitable crises of capitalism and the rise of socialist movements. It is characterized by all forms of chauvinism (especially racism, occasionally leading to genocide), nationalism, anti-Communism, and the suppression of democratic rights and freedoms. In a Capitalist society, Liberalism and Fascism essentially exist on a spectrum. The degree to which a given society if Fascist directly corresponds to the degree to which the proletariat must be openly oppressed in order to maintain profits for the Bourgeoisie. This why we have the sayings: "Fascism is Capitalism in decay" and "Scratch a Liberal, and a Fascist bleeds"

Capitalism requires infinite growth in a finite system. This inevitably leads to Capitalist Imperialism as well as Fascism, given that infinite growth is not actually possible. When the capitalist economy reaches its limits, the Bourgeoisie are forced to either expand their markets into other territories (Imperialism) or exploit the domestic proletariat to an even greater degree (Fascism). This is why we have the saying: "Fascism is imperialist repression turned inward"

The struggle against fascism is an essential part of the struggle for socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people. However, it is critical to note that simply combatting Fascism alone without also combatting Liberalism is reactionary, because it ignores the fact that Fascism inevitably arises out of Capitalism, so Liberal Anti-Fascism is not really anti-Fascism at all.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Were The Nazis Socialist? | Second Thought (2022)
• Capitalism and Fascism | Marxism Literature Collective (2021)
• Fascism: The Decay of Capitalism | Leslie Fluette (2020)
• The New F Word: How Fascism Found a Market | Second Thought (2021-2023)
• What Exactly is Liberalism? (no, it's not about being "woke") | Hakim (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• The Struggle Against Fascism | Clara Zetkin (1923)
• Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism | Michael Parenti (1997)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Freedom

Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of unfreedom?

Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

— Karl Marx. (1848). Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels

Under Capitalism

Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people.

The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class.

— Ho Chi Minh. (1959). Report on the Draft Amended Constitution

The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker.

They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc.

— J. V. Stalin. (1936). On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R

What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about.

Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist.

— N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). The ABC of Communism

All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie:

The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term.

— A. Gramsci. (1924). Democracy and fascism

But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person?

The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about.

— Maurice Bishop

Under Communism

True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled.

Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in more freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed.

Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom.

There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context.

Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before.

U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky.

Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on.

— Michael Parenti. (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class:

But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

— J. V. Stalin. (1936). Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard

Additional Resources

Videos:

• Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why: | halim alrah (2019)
• Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism? | Second Thought (2020)
• Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals | Second Thought (2021)
• Why The US Is Not A Democracy | Second Thought (2022)
• America Never Stood For Freedom | Hakim (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Positive and Negative Liberty | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Read

Introduction

• The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism | V. I. Lenin (1913)
• Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism | V. I. Lenin (1914)
• The Principles of Communism | F. Engels (1847)
• Manifesto of the Communist Party | K. Marx, F. Engels (1848)
• Why Socialism? | A. Einstein (1949)

Historical Materialism

• The German Ideology, Part 1. A: Idealism and Materialism | K. Marx, F. Engels (1845)
• Dialectical and Historical Materialism | J. V. Stalin (1938)

Scientific Socialism

• Socialism: Utopian and Scientific | F. Engels (1880)
• What Is To Be Done? | V. I. Lenin (1901)
• State and Revolution | V. I. Lenin (1917)
• The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky | V. I. Lenin (1918)
• V. I. Lenin. Texts against revisionism and opportunism:
  • The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx (1913)
  • Opportunism, and the Collapse of the Second International (1915)
  • The Collapse of the Second International (1915)
  • Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916)
  • Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism (1910)
  • Marxism and Revisionism (1908)
  • Marxism and Reformism (1913)
• “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder | V. I. Lenin (1920)
• Anti-Dühring - Part III: Socialism | F. Engels (1877)
• Anarchism Or Socialism? | J. V. Stalin (1906)
• Foundations of Leninism | J. V. Stalin (1924)
• On Practice | Mao Zedong (1937)
• Oppose Book Worship | Mao Zedong (1930)
• Combat Liberalism | Mao Zedong (1937)

Philosophy

• On contradiction | Mao Zedong (1937)
• Anti-Dühring - Part I: Philosophy | F. Engels (1877)
• Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy | F. Engels (1886)
• Theses on Feuerbach | K. Marx (1845)

Political Economy

• Wage Labour and Capital | K. Marx (1847)
• Wages, price and profit | K. Marx (1865)
• Anti-Dühring - Part II: Political Economy | F. Engels (1877)
• Capital Volume I | K. Marx (1867)
• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism | V. I. Lenin (1916)

Watch

• Socialism for Absolute Beginners | Second Thought (2022)
• Why You Should Be A Socialist In 2023 | Second Thought (2023)
• Marxism Today's Socialism 101 Playlist:
  • Why Communism?
  • #1 What is Communism?
  • #2 What is a Mode of Production?
  • #3 The Difference Between Personal and Private Property
  • #4 What is Capitalism?
  • #5 What is Socialism?
  • #6 What is Social Class?
  • #7 What is Marxism?
  • #8 What is Dialectical Materialism?
  • #9 What is Historical Materialism?
  • #10 What is Contradiction?
  • #11 Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism
  • Marx's Law of Value: Intro to Marxist Economics
  • What is Commodity Fetishism?
  • Base and Superstructure: The Marxist Analysis of Society
  • What is Alienation?
• Marxism Today's Socialism 201 Playlist:
  • What is the State?
  • What is a Vanguard Party? ML & MLM Formations
  • What is Capitalist Imperialism?
  • The National Question: Nations & Self-Determination
  • On Women's Emancipation
  • What is Bureaucrat Capitalism? | On Oppressed-Nation Economies
  • How To Know Things
  • How to Criticize Comrades | Constructive Crit and Self-Crit

Listen

• The Deprogram
• Socialism for All / S4A | Foundations of Marxism-Leninism (Basically audiobooks)
• Revolutionary Left Radio
• Red Menace
• Total Liberation

Full text since Twitter is shitted:

1. U.S. style “democracy” is a clever political system that prevents any real change or violent uprising against the wealthy 0.1% that run the country. Every 4 years, the people get to exercise their “democratic rights” to pick from a pool of candidates pre-selected by the 0.1%.

2. Having a platform to promote oneself & positive publicity are key in winning any U.S. elections. Since the 0.1% own Western media, they also decide which candidates to give platform to (and which ones to ignore). The 0.1% also provide any "donations" necessary to run.

3. In short, the 0.1% (who control Western media & provide the "political donations") are the ones who determine the pool of candidates. The masses get to enjoy the political circus/pillow fights between the pre-selected candidates & vote for their favourite team (red or blue).

4. By giving the peasants a token choice between Republicans & Democrats every 4 years (both controlled by the 0.1%), the people are satisfied. By giving the masses the freedom of speech to vent at their leaders (although nothing will change), the American people are pacified.

5. What if the American people are unhappy with their current leaders? No problem. They have the democratic rights to...

   • cuss & swear at them (but nothing will fundamentally change)
   • vote in new leaders at the next election (all pre-selected by the 0.1%) Rinse & repeat.

6. Once in office, the politicians make policies on behalf of the 0.1% who put them in power. They also appoint people chosen by the 0.1% into senior civil & military positions. When they retire, lucrative positions in think tanks & corporations (owned by the 0.1%) await them.

7. This is why it's not necessary for elected leaders of the U.S. (e.g. President or Congress) to be competent. They just need to be able to sell the agenda of the 0.1% to the masses. The actual running of the state is done by civil/military members put in place by the 0.1%.

8. While the 0.1% run the U.S., the world will know no peace. The U.S. will continue to incite wars everywhere. America will bomb, overthrow, loot & sanction any nation it wants. And unfortunately, the American people are unlikely to revolt for the reasons stated previously.

9. World peace is contingent upon the forceful removal of the greedy & war profiteering 0.1% from power in Washington. Yet the American people are unlikely to do it themselves. That means change to the current “rules-based international order” will have to come externally.