this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
40 points (87.0% liked)
The Deprogram
1961 readers
54 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
Who is more revolutionary: the Chinese billionaire defending the CPC or the white trailer parker family who supported Trump/Biden? The sex traffic rings are not extraneous of systems of power of capital, they are intrinsic to them. There was no mass revolt when the Epstein files were released but there are thousands of pogroms and attacks on minorities in the name of protecting white women against the Foreign Hordes. The complicity is not subtle. The scapegoating of elites against rest of westerners is to downplay then actual bribes of imperialist profits at play. It is why all your more visible communist parties will not really touch the question on labour aristocracy or settlerism.
Marxism-leninism is to truly recognise the classes we belong to as they are so we can then betray our classes successfully where appropriate. In the imperial cores it may mean we forgo collaboration with those who benefit more from their impetialist state than we can materially offer them and organise with those who don't - the lumpen proletriat, migrant workers and oppressed nations within nations.
Chinese billionaires aren't there to defend the CPC lol, what in the world. The CPC continues to succeed because political power is not in the hands of its billionaires, or any other billionaires. Billionaires would not be trustworthy to defend it, given they have fundamentally different class interests.
This is an overly vague characterization. Are we talking about somebody whose family members murder brown people overseas? Or somebody who filled out a ballot at election time? Because we as communists are supposed to recognize that bougie elections are largely farcical. Blaming the voting masses for a rigged electoral system is not a serious analysis.
Yeah, because revolution isn't a spontaneous mass action. I feel confident that you should know this from what I can recall of your posts in the past, so why are you talking like something else is true. BTW, the last time the US had major spontaneous mass action (the 2020 protests) was in response to racist police brutality and they got chemical weapons used against them (tear gas), they got beaten, some organizers were murdered. People always leave out this part when they want to lazily characterize the entire west as an inert mass of horribleness.
And in Ireland, some people are fighting back: https://thespectaclemag.substack.com/p/foreign-invaders-are-destroying-irelandand
But sure, let's ignore everyone who has ever sacrificed to try to fight the beast from within and lump them all into the same exact group. Again, this is not serious analysis.
It's not scapegoating??? It is a world of class and power difference. Getting paid slightly more or having slightly better living conditions is not the same as bombing civilians in order to try to create a failed state so that imperial power can be maintained and expanded.
Last I knew, PSL does at least acknowledge the settler issue being a thing. That said, I have never claimed the west does super well on the settler issue, but it's beside the point of what we're talking about. You were misusing a term that has a specific material meaning to make it mean something else that doesn't make any sense. And now you are doubling down in a way that comes off like you are defending billionaires. I think you need to take a step back.
If you want to say the west is not cleanly divided into elite and victim, that's fine, you can make that point. But don't go down this road that implies billionaires can have more revolutionary potential than somebody living in a trailer park because of their geography. I don't know what that is, but it has nothing to do with dialectical materialism or communism.
It's noteworthy that Ireland was once colonized, and the Irish who today are helping immigrants are doing so out of solidarity based on being a victim of british colonisation. Concerning America, an analogous phenomenon could be black and indigenous solidarity fighting against settlers, or to be more accurate, fighting settlers who are explicitly racist and dangerous.
Yes, that is a helpful thing to note and it's part of the reason why the conditions of the US are far more complicated than "white people being privileged and bad".
I would recommend H. W. Edward's Labor Aristocracy, Mass Base of Social Democracy. And then (re) read Day's essay on brainwashing (masses, elites and rebels) from Redsails thereafter.
You're part of a class on the global stage. Truly understand its material conditions and learn how you are going to betray it.
Best of luck
You are not preaching about labor aristocracy in this thread. You are taking it to some other level where billionaires are revolutionary because they're Chinese and people living in a trailer park in the US are villains because they voted for a US president. This is not an understanding of class on the global stage. It is a reductionist view of material conditions and contradictions that collapses the worldview into oversimplified nodes instead of broadening in order to be able to work through specific contradictions.
Consider reading it, and you may develop a different view.
Chareterisations of villains and heroes are besides the point. It is about understanding the science of who may be revolutionary domestically so we can spend most of our limited resources on them. This means carefully, and maybe painfully for some, understanding what it means to be a settler and bourgoisie proleteriat. It is step away from a simplistic dynamism of rich vs poor otherwise end up resulting in the same mistakes of those who Marx and Lenin criticised (eg Proudhon).
I found Cesaire snd Losurdo's works useful too. Eg https://redsails.org/discours-sur-le-colonialisme/
You literally asked this before like it was a serious question:
And have not addressed the problems with it at all. Going beyond "simple dynamism of rich and poor" does not mean defending the rich and characterizing them as more revolutionary than somebody living in a trailer park because they live in a non-settler country.
But that's not what you've been talking about.
You didn't say, "Here is where you should focus your energies domestically." You compared Chinese billionaire and white Yankee in a trailer park.
Don't say one thing, act like you're saying another, and then throw reading material at me when I don't agree, as if this will clarify.
BTW, I have read the redsails article on brainwashing before, probably multiple times by now. And it is incredibly overrated as an analysis. Here's a part that stands out to me:
The author almost realizes their own mistake, but then skips on by it and says nah, I'm not making that mistake. But they are. They are being incredibly reductionist in relation to hundreds of millions of people. They go on to double down on the reductionist rhetoric even more:
This is a nonsense argument. First, via no evidenced investigation, the author supposes that hundreds of millions of people, some of which are non-white peoples with a much more complicated history than this kind of rhetoric gives them any recognition of, share essentially the same point of view. This point of view is something they implicitly know, yet hide from. So now we have shifted from "they are brainwashed and this explains their lack of movement" to implying "they are a hyper intelligent hive mind who knows exactly what's going on and pretends not to because it feels good to pretend."
It's the kind of article that reeks of academic marxism. Of trying to "cudgel one's brains and develop an idea" without going out and investigating. The author encountered a problem, that sometimes people will reject the evidence you give them that challenges their existing worldview, and extrapolated a massive honker of a speculative generalization out of trying to answer why.
So rather than consider that westerners are acting in their self interests as beneficiaries of imperialism, and that material conditions affects what self-filtering occurs, we should instead double down on the idealistic notion that we should appeal to those who would benefit more from what the imperialist state than anything an actual anti-imperialist movement can offer them.
So for example in the US, instead of working with say original nation movements and the New Afrikan movements to better the US ML line we should focus on the settler nation folks by appealing to their empathetic sensibilities, which has so far failed for the past few centuries and no analysis about how to go about it differently that isn't much more than trade unionism and protest marches.
Fuck that White Noise. Being a westerner is a fucking disease.
Everything you've said so far has been a mix of campism and race reductionism with no actual class analysis and makes you sound more like the black American liberals that cry about white Leftists being racist and treat us as if we're one goose step away from joining the Klan.
Westerners exist as a class against the Global South and there are nations of folks that within the imperial cores that are more fruitful in targetting for whom destruction of imperialism is in their benefit.
Having a material basis for the organisation of movements means having an honest analysis on the nature of labour aristocracy and settlerism. Any succesful movement will offer more than the imperialist state can offer but that requires targetting sections of the popularion outside of typical voting blocks.
I'm not saying there isn't a creative way of getting a sizable amount of settlers to join the cause but history shows the track record has not been great.
Accusations of campism and race reductionism is why the CPUSA has devolved into what it is today. Want more CPUSAs, fucking have at it. Westerners cosplaying with sickle and hammer refusing to actually move the needle forward ain't my fucking problem. It offends your white sensibilities? Good.
The immortal science of marxism-leninism is despite Marx and Engels being white. It's that good. White is a social relation, it can be dismantled.
"Westerners" are not a class. You are bastardizing the word to the point of uselessness. May as well be calling humans a class that oppresses other primates.
My "white sensibilities" are not offended; what is offending me is your Vulgar Marxism that conflates CPUSA's pro-settler ideology with the entirety of the American Left. I didn't even mention the CPUSA and I don't care for them. I accused you of being a campist and race reductionist because that's what you're doing: making excuses for Chinese billionaires and placing race over class in a hierarchy of analysis instead of treating them as equal forces.
You say white is a social relation, you say it can be dismantled, yet you categorically dismiss the idea multiple times previously and assert that socialism in the West is pointless in what is very clearly Third Worldist drivel. Your analysis isn't productive; it is divisive. No one is going to deny that workers in the Core have it better than workers in the Periphery. No one is going to deny that this privilege makes it harder to persuade Core workers to socialism since they are used to better conditions. But to treat it like its a hopeless cause is defeatism.
What exactly do you expect comrades in the West to do? You seem convinced that we can't actually do anything useful to contribute to the international movement so should we just give up or runaway to AES states or what? Like, what is the point of saying all this stuff? What practical purpose does this kind of analysis serve?
Me: repeatedly points out that the situation in the US is more complicated than just white people
You: so you're saying we should work exclusively with white people?
I don't have any patience for this any more. I don't even know who you are arguing with.
Didn't you hear? Intersectionality is when you work only with white people. They're already so diverse as is! Who needs any other group?
Also all Westerners are white, and there is absolutely no nuance to that statement. Now, let me get back to planning my revolution with my vanguard party consisting of three guys and a dog we adopted.
Yeah, this whole thing has been baffling. Like you explicitly pointed out diversity in your experiences organizing with PSL, IIRC? In this very thread in response to darkernations? Isn't that a point of evidence toward the idea that not all western organizing is languishing in targeting white people?
I mean, I honestly don't know what some people want. Do they want white westerners to go hit up indigenous nations and the black prison population exclusively for revolutionary organizing? Or are the white westerners supposed to sit on the sidelines because they're too tainted to organize in the first place? (In which case, they'd then get criticized for letting non-white people do the sacrifice to change the world.) I never understand quite what the goal is. I get the settler issue matters, as does race, but I can remember two distinct times on here, this thread and another user/thread a while back, where in both cases the position was very strong about who to organize with and in both cases, I never got a clear answer on the logistics of actually doing it.
You have to analyse what went wrong before you to be able to move forward.
So you have reached the levels of ACP. Great. What do you have to offer materially that bests the imperialist state? Wouldn't that involve an analysis of the labour aristocracy and pitfalls of failed movements before?
WHAT. How is questioning the logistics of what you're saying make me like the ACP. Noteworthy that you didn't actually address my confusion/concerns in your response. All you did is imply I'm in favor of settlerism / want to defend it (a gross implication) and ask unrelated rhetorical questions.
You have not explained what exactly you want people to be doing or how. It's not clever to vaguely tell me to look to the past to learn for the future. This isn't a movie where I'm a young person on a hero's journey and go to an old person for advice. This is a discussion forum of equals. Act like it.
Intersectionalism is not diversity in a group. It is way of explanining oppression without cosnidering class analysis. Marxism supercedes it. Critical theories in the US eveolved as way to dance around marxism, class analysis and the imperialist characteritics of the western nation ie to remove internafionalism. It is why the CIA funded partly the Frankfurt School. For example, queer rights aren't an "add-on" to oppression, it is in intrisnic to understanding capital and the patriarchy needed to uphold it.
The white settler nation isn't just white people in the similar way zionists collaborated with nazis. Consider a nation as peoples rather than the bourgoisie borders enclosing them. Westerners are a class of which white supremacism has been the ideological vehicle suprastructure of which people of colour can join to uphold it. It's the similar thing with how for example patriarchy isn't the same as misogony.
Having an honest analysis of labour aristocracy would likely mean class betrayal, and that is a good thing.
From my personal experience with lumpenproletariat, they will always smile in your face while driving the sword to the hilt and calling you family. There may be an exception but I'm probably the only lumpenproletariat I know who wouldn't.
Which is exactly why Marx states the Lumpen are a volatile class, while simultaneously being easily swayed by socialist rhetoric. The destitute material conditions make the class ruthless.
The lumpenproletetiat are ones the captial class has excluded fron easy access as a prolteriat. The black prison populafion in the US exists even though it's a net cost to the state because it benefits the white population from labour competition and therefore preserves wage inflation and their greater cut of imperialist superprofits.
The likes of the PSL (only bringing this one up because of the rampant apologism on LG for this group. You can make the same case for all the other sickle and hammer cosplayers too) does not want to examine this dynamic because a greater share of the support draws from the latter group at the expense of the former. And the reason they have to particpate in electoralism is because there is not anything they can offer materially more to the white settler nation than what the inperialist state offers, and given they are marxist-leninist ie the material comes before the idea, it then begs the question why have they failed for several years to have any real question on labour aristocracy or settlerism.
The revolutionary groups are cleqrly those that you can offer maferiallly more than the imperialist state, which then will have to include the lumpenproleriat. It is why marxist prison movements are a thing.
Most of the lumpenprole around me traffic drugs, women, weapons, gambling and are heavily intertwined with the legal apparatus, so I'm not seeing them willing to work hard for the rest of their lives in hopes of reaping rewards for their children. Don't get me wrong, as long as you stay in your lane, they're not going out of their way to bother you, but plenty of tax free money is hard to beat.
Just from your example you can deduce there are more women lumpenproleteriat than the ones exploiting them. It is not that lumpenprolteriat are intrinsically revolutionary just like bourgoisie proleteriat aren't intrinsically revolutionary.
Capitalist states and the bourgoisie proletriat who work for them are already engaged in this.
Consider maybe that who is a crimimal and who isn't is intrinsically part of the captial power dynamics of any given capitalist society.
The trafficked women become complicit to lure more in. It starts with the drugs, or loss of a job, or both. They have to want to be done with all of it, and be done with all of it for a while. Even then, loyalty to the abusers is the last thing to die, especially when it's your blood family.
Or the black trailer parker section 8er who consider you evil incarnate for daring vote third in a crimson red fortress.
It's important to acknowledge skin privilege, but also a class traitor is a class traitor. Paying off the cops/judges/prosecutors privilege is just as real. When gang members, regardless of race work for the system that oppresses them, then what? Not all foot soldiers are souljas.