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:

  1. No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
  2. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  3. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
  4. No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
  5. No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
  6. Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.

Resources:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
airbusairnet@lemmygrad.ml
Ancient_Egg_57@lemmygrad.ml
40
not even Jeffrey Eipstein could make people form class conciousness (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 3 days ago by opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml to c/thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I decided to not be bitter and i followed a liberal influencer for like a week (they dont make political content usually) but today they posted that BULLSHIT about how trump is causing wars as a cover for the files and i had to unfollow. nobody is starting wars over that, theyre starting wars for capital and resources.

what the fuck is a ”eipstein class”? just those guys on the files? are the billionaires who refused or were not invited alright with you?

and of course the religious zealots doing the bit about how eipstein was satan incarnate while churning out money for their pastor to buy a new mansion.

the prolecattleiat is not being elevated to sapience by this situation alone. people have to read theory which is why i encourage them to do so. libs, anarchists and conservatives have the balls to talk about how mao, stalin and other leaders were also pedophiles or ray peests so communism is not worth it either so we just need a matriarchy as if a capitalist system would be fine if women were in charge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You have to analyse what went wrong before you to be able to move forward.

Do they want white westerners to go hit up indigenous nations and the black prison population exclusively for revolutionary organizing?

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?

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 days ago

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.

Also all Westerners are white

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.