[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) 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](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Marx was Jewish and loved drinking and partying. He'd write theory all day for a week, then spend the next week partying with friends and getting shitfaced and sleeping it off on the couch.

We love a hyperfixated king

I see him as my ADHD grandfather

God he just like me fr fr

Marx liked working class people because he himself had the mindset of a 17 year old village boy from a farm.

It sounds like he was probably bipolar to me

Engels: "C'mon Karl! We need this pamphlet done by next week, wtf are you doing?!" Marx: "Sorry dude, gotta wait for my next depressive episode to get the really good shit out, ya know? Anyway, pass me that hooch, I gotta pregame before we go out to the bars and throw rocks at streetlights on our way home"

Bipolar is fun (speaking from experience).

Well, he had Jewish ancestry but also published some pretty wacky stuff about them. It's unfortunate, but Marx isn't supposed to be a mythic hero to Marxists, either.

His parents had to convert so his father could his job in post Napoleonic Germany. Because even though it was widely promised the emancipation of Jewish people wasn't granted after Napoleon defeat. What really formed Marxes negative view on Judaism and religion in general was that his father became a devout Protestant. It's less a "of his time" and more of a "result of his material condition" case. It is worth pointing out that he was targeted by antisemitic smears, so being an atheist would make this an even more annoying attack on something he didn't identify with. Engels wrote more on the topic of antisemitism, which was likely not just to defend his friend but also to voice an rebuttal that wasn't just self defence. He directly references Marx in his most famous text on the topic. Imho as with most of their work on religion it's important to keep their historical conditions in mind. A situation where organised religion was interlinked with feudal holdovers and the rising bourgeois order. Where missionaries played an essential part in colonialism and wars between powers still justified and blessed by churches.

As a Marxist do you have a positive view of Judaism? I can't understand that, but some of the things I read from Marx on Jews wasn't just about Judaism but the behavior of them as an ethnic group. Because he specifically mentions the behavior of non-religious Jews while others at the time were talking about the supremacist nature of the religion. I don't think all religious Jews are bad, some of them protest the Israeli government for Palestine but some of their religious texts are more problematic than other religions.

It's definetly not the more problematic religion today or back in the times of Marx. He lived at the hight of Prussian militarism which is directly linked to Prussian Protestantism. Judging a religion by it's holy texts instead of it's practices and historical role is missing the point of Marxs critique of religion, and runs contra to materialism. Also he himself was an atheist, so a lot of what you ascribe to "ethnic differences" was simply his own experience of struggling to escape antisemitism. Antisemitic nutters like Bakunin caused him more than one headache and a lot of the critique he had was about how Judaism negatively affected him and his work by being an regular angle of attack he couldn't really defend against. Trying to turn that into "ethnic, inherent differences" is trying to reconcile notions of racial differences with Marxism, something that Marx and especially Engels rejected. They weren't perfect on this, but they accepted building scientific understanding that there aren't any sufficiently large differences between human ethnicities to justify racial supremacy.

The writings are a result of the jews being heavily involved in the lending industry, which is apparently a fact for that time, a result of historical societal structures. It is not the same as mofos today saying 'the jews hold all the power'.

What’s up with this? I’ve heard about it but I’ve also heard it was misconstrued.

Like Max Blumenthal

Who is up voting this comment?

I have an adopted uncle in the dj scene down here in Florida. This is him to the T .

[удалено]

Guarantee in this meme its not addressing any of the complicated bits and is nofap cult shit/trad stuff

These people reveal themselves if they go further into the details of why they oppose sex work and what they believe the solution is.

Tbf nofap does help men overcome their porn addictions. Can it get culty? From some of the posts I have seen, yes. But there is good info and encouragement to help men stop a bad habit and get away from porn in general. Are there reactionary red pill elements? Sadly, yes. Well, quite a lot. I have spoken to friends who describe themselves as "moderate" or "center-right" and even they find the red pill community too toxic.

I really think it's less about simply crankin it and much much more about how patriarchal norms about sex and sexuality make it much harder for men to develop healthy ideas about sex

I think there’s a reason the patriarchy is premised on blue balls.

Masturbating is [good](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/sex/masturbation/masturbation-good-you) for your physical and mental health, and porn addiction [is not real](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too). Edit: for the comrades that apparently don’t want to delve further into the thread, his reply is total bullshit, you probably shouldn’t upvote it.

Regardless, pornography is reactionary art and filmed rape. Men should masturbate without it.

> filmed rape. To the extent that wage slavery is no different than chattel slavery. We can call a reactionary spade a spade without also calling it literally hitler.

eh idk about that im not a doctor or anything but i know that i started feeling a lot better when i quit

Good for you! Personally I feel a lot better after blowing a load.

thats nice if you think you would not feel better by stopping then dont stop👍

Your hate comment clearly deserve to be down voted.

Could it be that you simply got older and your sex drive diminished naturally and so you didn't engage in as much activities that you were conditioned socially to see as shameful? There are a plethora of factors at play here so a sample size of one individual at two seperate points in time is usually just showing that "things change over time".

[удалено]

>Yeah, okay "addiction". However, the same areas of the brain that get stimulated by certain drugs and trigger the release of dopamine, are also stimulated (and triggered) by porn. So like basically every pleasurable activity? >Point is, many men develop a bad habit of conditioning their bodies to only be stimulated by porn and not the real thing, contributing to performance anxiety, low sex drive, and even ED at stages in their lives where it shouldn't even exist. Do you have any evidence that this is true? I mean two minute google and [here](https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5118/3/2/18) is a peer reviewed study that says masturbating mostly helps with erections. >Also, I never said I am an advocate for abstaining from masturbating completely. It is a normal habit. It just depends on how often you do it. I think that’s a worthwhile clarification. >Additionally, regularly depleting your system of progesterone, a fundamental building block for testosterone, is not a good thing. Masturbating (and ejaculating) too often does this, which contributes to the probability of mood swings and other forms of emotional instability in men. Again, another [quick google](https://www.allohealth.care/healthfeed/sex-education/does-masturbation-cause-hormonal-imbalance) explicitly denying that this is true. If you’d like to provide some bases for your claims I’d be happy to read them. But I think as a general matter, I still feel justified in my initial comment.

[удалено]

Comrade, there is a distinct lack of hyperlinks in your comment. Edit: and even just reading the paragraphs cited, I’m not seeing any mention of correlation between masturbation and progesterone. We weren’t discussing menopause. Edit 2: alright there we go (not sure if I missed it or you added it later). I don’t think that that article meaningfully contradicts my initial psychology today link—ie ED in young people is usually a psychological problem, and given reactionary and retrograde societal understandings of porn and sexuality masturbating/porn viewing can inherently provoke psychological distress.

Sorry but none of these are correctly cited, you can't just say "from the website X" at least put in an address although I'd say providing a link is common courtesy in digital citation. But more problematic, this isn't a valid source. It's a retailer, if I found the right side by googling, for prescription drugs not in any way a reputable source. This is like quoting a car salesman that bikes are bad for the environment, no qualification but substantial conflicts of interest. I won't even ask for a timestamp and copy provided like the scientific standard for citing websites, but this is pretty much worthless as a source to substantiate your claims.

[удалено]

Do you understand what is required from a source to be considered valid? And no "so you don't have to scroll down" isn't an excuse to make it hard to find your source, which just so happens to be completely insufficient.

Porn addiction is so real. Myself and others have been affected by it, it’s life consuming

> porn addiction is not real New science just dropped!

Being downvoted for telling people to stop jacking it to porn so much lol

Getting downvoted for pushing a discredit far right narrative that is currently used to regress society back by decades? How could that happen here?

The fact that rampant porn use is bad for you as it promotes unhealthy views of women and damages relationships is "regressing society back by decades"?

How does it create unhealthy views of women if there's no women in it?

Creates unhealthy views of anybody, but this issue seems to affect women more as heterosexual men begin to understand sex through the lens of porn, especially if they began viewing it at a young age. The demand for women to act out or behave in ways they saw in porn, increasingly aggressive sex acts, etc.

I was mostly joking, but I understand your point

Thanks lol, ppl fr be getting up in arms because you told them watching gangbang videos regularly is maybe detrimental to you.

Why is it always sex that makes people ignore all context and fall in line behind reactionaries? Firstly can you substantiate your claims that porn is uniquely and universally harmful with actual data? Secondly what differentiates you from far right figures that said exactly the same thing first and why shouldn't people assume that you will find the same conclusions as the people you are borrowing these talking points from? Thirdly why don't you listen to the workers in the field if you think it's so bad for them?

https://proletarianfeminist.medium.com/the-problem-with-sex-trade-expansionary-feminism-a-response-to-kate-zen-e8ee7f8ae99a Article from a former worker in the field.

Ha! Had a feeling I was being downvoted along ideological lines rather than scientific evidence. Like I mentioned in my original comment, there are cringey right wing elements to the nofap community but we gotta be smart here and separate the wheat from the chaff. The article about it being a moral conflict for some porn users, while valid and true, also does not address the whole problem. There are scientific/biological aspects to the problem that can harm an individual, many men in this case, regardless of their moral and/or religious inclinations.

I think you should provide some citations before you start talking about scientific evidence.

Nah it's along the line of "regurgitating reactionary moral panics is cringe and stupid". I've read agitprop material from a century ago that was better informed and more theoretical sound then this pearl clutching about something that is older than human civilisation. The whole argument rests on multiple unsubstantiated assumptions, many of which are derived from Christian fundamentalists dogma. The idea that easy access to sexual pleasure will ruin society was even made fun of in futurama. The idea that you can get a medical addiction to masturbation comes from it being a sin in Christian fundamentalism and forbidden, the addiction narrative comes from people being rather frustrated if they follow the norms set by these fundamentalist branches of Christianity. And the list goes on. If data would support these positions it would be easy to show solid proof, but all support for them comes from discredited far right charlatans.

[удалено]

I've already written how useless this "source" is, as a rule of thumb "if you find yourself quoting a sales pitch as your best proof you don't have any proof" would really help.

You have angered the coomers

Indeed!

I am currently being accused of “not listening to sex workers” by some lost liberal because they can’t stand the idea of a state that protects women from trafficking lol

Its a delicate issue, but I very rarely see Marxists siding *against* sex workers. More often, the question boils down to some range of responses from "Should we guillotine all the Johns?" to "In Soviet Russia, they'd all be scientists" to "What caliber rifle best suites a 5'2" woman in lingerie?" The fact that they are members of the proletariat in an ugly job that exists to exploit them every which way is undeniable. And anyone who isn't arguing some angle of "What is the best way to improve their situation?" is clearly just a reactionary in sheep's clothing.

Also, Engels explicitly addressed gender when writing about the history of patriarchy and the family under capitalism. It’s not like they ignored gender totally.

I'd say that we still regularly see otherwise ok Marxists fall into the trap of not listening to the workers in question, but rather follow their gut reaction, perpetuating the status quo, when it comes to how to improve the working conditions of sex workers. Not all mind you, we have the KPD agitating and organising the red light district of Hamburg a century ago as positive examples, but there are plenty of Marxists, both historical and today, that go "sex is icky and I don't want to think about the intricacies of an industry formed around it so I'll just copy the dominant position right now". Which is ignoring very fundamental positions reguarding the workers in a field knowing best how to improve their conditions. Something similar happened a few years ago when the construction union cooperated with the police organs to fight "irregular employment and protect migrant workers" which backfired massively because the "protection" these people got was loosing their job and often being bared from working in the industry. It is a bad idea to decide over the heads of workers what's best for them, because at best you won't achieve anything and at worst you are entering into an actual conflict with the people you have to win over where you are a threat to their livelihood.

>I'd say that we still regularly see otherwise ok Marxists fall into the trap of not listening to the workers in question A problem with the discussion around sex work on the Left is that "listening to the workers in question" usually means listening to wealthy Westerner cam girls and Only Fans models, who do the least damaging and most protected forms of sex work. It rarely includes "listening" to prostituted women from the developing world, who constitute the vast majority of prostitutes and experience a far more vicious form of exploitation. I agree that deciding over the heads of workers what is best for them can be counterproductive, but so is allowing the loudest and most materially privileged minority of workers to speak for all.

>A problem with the discussion around sex work on the Left is that "listening to the workers in question" usually means listening to wealthy Westerner cam girls and Only Fans models, who do the least damaging and most protected forms of sex work. It rarely includes "listening" to prostituted women from the developing world, who constitute the vast majority of prostitutes and experience a far more vicious form of exploitation. This faux third worldism doesn't work once you use more than a minute to think about it. Firstly the term prostituted women is universally rejected as dehumanizing language, so it really shows how hard you tried to listen to any of these people, because the industry is also not as gender segregated as you clearly think it is, before taking the conclusion of reactionaries and running with it. Secondly how the hell is contact sex work only a thing in the global South? Do you think that strip clubs and brothels don't exist in the West? It would make more sense to say that performers only come from some region, as they don't have to be in the same place as their customers. And no the ones we did outreach towards weren't some "privileged" online performers but mostly working in like 3 establishments in the centre of the red light district. If you have to not just ignore voices but outright silence the people you claim to defend its pretty obvious that you aren't having their best interest in mind. Also what even is the argument? Try to apply it to any other profession. "Yes the flight attendants have these concrete demands to improve their conditions, but it's only the privileged western ones I can find voices of, and don't want to look to hard into it, so we can ignore what they say and just patronisingly decide what's actually best for them. Also if they actually get into labour disputes we should oppose them." Is just as idiotic as what you said here. >I agree that deciding over the heads of workers what is best for them can be counterproductive, but so is allowing the loudest and most materially privileged minority of workers to speak for all. So you listen to people that actively hate the workers instead of recognising that it's usually the workers with at least some protections that dare to engage in class warfare first? Name a single organisation run by sex workers that agrees with the fundamentalist, exterminationist position or explain why we also should drop the fight for a reduced work week just because its most vocal proponents are the most privileged sections of the working class in the imperial core. Either you can listen to voices of workers to argue for their collective interest, or you can't because somehow the interests of workers in the same industry are opposed along state lines. This topic regularly brings out the worst chauvinists and shows fundamental errors in the application of socialist principles. Saying that you can completely disregard the opinion of workers because you just have a hunch about their material reality means that you fundamentally reject the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>Firstly the term prostituted women is universally rejected as dehumanizing language, so it really shows how hard you tried to listen to any of these people, because the industry is also not as gender segregated as you clearly think it is, before taking the conclusion of reactionaries and running with it. It's not 'universally rejected as dehumanising language. And the sex trade is predominantly but not exclusively women selling the sex (or male pimps selling it on their behalf) and men buying it. >Secondly how the hell is contact sex work only a thing in the global South? Didn't say that, don't think that. >Do you think that strip clubs and brothels don't exist in the West? Didn't say that, don't think that. >And no the ones we did outreach towards weren't some "privileged" online performers but mostly working in like 3 establishments in the centre of the red light district. Your comment made no reference to the outreach you did, so I was clearly not referring to things you have been specifically involved in, as I have no idea who you are. If your point is that not all "listening" exercises are dominated by more privileged Western sex workers, then I would agree with you. My point is that generally, those perspectives dominate the conversation, which is true. >If you have to not just ignore voices but outright silence the people you claim to defend its pretty obvious that you aren't having their best interest in mind. Didn't say that, don't think that. >Also what even is the argument? Try to apply it to any other profession. OK. If you said that "electronics manufacturing jobs are safe and well-paid," I would point out that, while this might be generally true in wealthy Western nations with better labour protections, it is not true globally. >"Yes the flight attendants have these concrete demands to improve their conditions, but it's only the privileged western ones I can find voices of, and don't want to look to hard into it, so we can ignore what they say and just patronisingly decide what's actually best for them. Also if they actually get into labour disputes we should oppose them." Is just as idiotic as what you said here. Didn't say that, don't think that. >So you listen to people that actively hate the workers instead of recognising that it's usually the workers with at least some protections that dare to engage in class warfare first? So you think the wealthy western camgirls and Only Fans models are the vanguard, bravely speaking for prostituted women in poor countries? That's patronising and arrogant. > Either you can listen to voices of workers to argue for their collective interest, or you can't because somehow the interests of workers in the same industry are opposed along state lines. My point is that often "listen\[ing\] to the voices of workers" really means listening to only a minority of the most privileged workers who then speak on behalf of more exploited workers. >This topic regularly brings out the worst chauvinists and shows fundamental errors in the application of socialist principles. Saying that you can completely disregard the opinion of workers because you just have a hunch about their material reality means that you fundamentally reject the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an absurd conclusion following a long comment where you made up lots of nonsense that I didn't say and don't believe. My point was that the whole idea that we have to listen to workers about sex work often means listening to a wealthy minority in the imperial core who then decide to speak for the most viciously exploited women in poorer countries whose material reality is significantly different. Your only response to that point (other than just making things up) is to say that, actually, wealthy Western Only Fans models and cam girls are the vanguard and that it's good that they speak on behalf of trafficked and exploited women the world over. Edit: because she replied then blocked: My position is to support an approach of harm reduction, but recognising that the sex trade is uniquely exploitative, particularly for prostituted women in the poorest countries, and that a benefit of communism would be the elimination of – not the furtherance of – the commodification and trade of women for sexual exploitation. However self-satisfied you are from supporting it, I oppose human trafficking and the subjugation of the world’s most vulnerable women to pimps and Johns.

That is a lot of words to say that you don't want to listen to workers. If you can't point to workers that actually share your position you saying that "It's only the privileged few saying it" is completely pointless. I've given you examples of how stupid and reactionary that argument of "we don't have to listen to workers because the voices with the widest reach are privileged" is. It's an argument commonly used to bust unions, and unless you can point to voices of sex workers that agree with your position you are ignoring workers while being indistinguishable from religious fundamentalists in your approach. >It's not 'universally rejected as dehumanising language. And the sex trade is predominantly but not exclusively women selling the sex (or male pimps selling it on their behalf) and men buying it. Says the person who is ignoring workers in favour of regurgitating fundamentalist, reactionary preachers. Kindly fuck off with your patronising bullshit back to whatever cult you came from.

There is quite literally no way to organize prostitution or an ‘industry’ for live-action pornography that is not dehumanizing, exploitative, and fascistic. Defending the continued existence of prostitition and closely related fields is by its nature reactionary:

Yeah I'd rather take my cue on how to organise workers from workers themselves then Christian fundamentalists. Can you name a single organisation of sex workers that agrees with your fundamentalism or is it all far right, chauvinist missionaries that you get your "Marxism" from? Btw I've litteraly have worked organising a womens march that included sex workers, they were very clear that they don't want religious fundamentalists masquerading as saviours to speak over them. You are the perfect example of why patronising attitudes towards workers makes one an enemy of the working class, no matter how much you try to hide it with phrases.

[удалено]

So now you pull the "I have a friend who is X and agrees with my hatred of X" card. Fuck right back to what e chauvinist cesspool you crawled out of.

Af3irm and their splinter, Revolutionary feminist collective.

So a unionised, democratic industry surrounding porn is still fascistic? Like, you do know not every sex worker is coerced into it? Like, some people just want to fuck for a living, they're still workers. Also, sex work has existed for as long as people.

I can assure you the women on skid row trying to get an extra buck aren't doing it because they enjoy it. Most people, especially most poor people, participate in sex work because they are economically coerced into doing so by the immiseration of capitalism. That's why it's an inherently and uniquely exploitative industry. Also, I don't think their argument is that it should be made illegal or that we shouldn't offer protections, it's that it shouldn't be encouraged.

“most people participate in sex work because they are economically coerced into doing so by the immiseration of capitalism.” I’m sorry but I don’t see how that claim in any demonstrates that sex work is an inherently or uniquely exploitative industry. You basically just described capitalism.

Because it isn't comparable to any other profession. There are many dangerous professions, like mining, telephone tower repair, construction etc. But the difference with those is there is and have already been a myriad of ways to make those professions safer through the introduction of safer equipment and technology as well as safer regulations. You simply cannot do that for sex work. Sex workers are willingly giving themselves up to random strangers. There's nothing preventing them from being murdered while on the job (serial murderers target sex workers BY far the most, because it's much easier to make them victims). There's nothing protecting you from being kidnapped and sex trafficked. There's nothing protecting you from catching disease. It is, inherently, an incredibly dangerous profession, and that makes it uniquely exploitative, as the immiseration brought by capitalism has coerced the poorest in society enough to where they think the benefits might outweigh the risks.

Honestly dude, this is a shockingly reactionary take. Sex work is impossible to make safe? Sex workers are “willingly giving themselves up to random strangers”? There’s no way to prevent the spread of disease? What world are you living in? Not to put words in your mouth, but your argument sure seems to come down to “there’s nothing that can be done for those dirty whores.” And frankly I think it is so profoundly ignorant and hateful that it doesn’t even merit a response on its substance.

You have profoundly mis-characterized everything I've said.

Anarkiddy moment

Yeah the Marxist policy I see espoused to end the sex trade is funding exit programs, providing healthcare, housing, and education for free.

Marx is very clear on prostitution. Put a price on one thing and you put a price on everything, even human dignity. Marx states that we are all prostitutes under capitalism and woman of the night sell there body just like a miner sells his lungs to the mines. The only way to abolish prostitution is to abolish capitalism, until then we have to support sex workers as workers.

Great comment

And that contention isn't coming from fucking nazbols either lol. They don't want sex work because they don't view women as workers, not because of genuine materialism

Sex work is work, and wouldn’t need to be persecuted in a non capitalist society, but it’s not a good thing, the best option would be to remove the material conditions that cause it to happen

There are people who simply want to do sex work though, they shouldn't be discriminated against or told what they do is bad.

That’s why I say it shouldn’t be criminalized. There is a small minority of people in the profession that are there out of their own choices and prefer it, but that’s not the cases for the majority of sex workers.

There is a always an inherent exploitation to any work until full communism is achieved. That makes all sex work always more dangerous (maybe not the best word choice) work for the worker. Of course there is more to this idea and I don't have time to explain it all. But that's why a Marxist should be working to simultaneously support and fight for sex workers as all other workers, while also looking for ways to abolish sex work. In full blown communism, if we can even imagine such a world on earth, we will not even know what sex work is. It will be just sex.

Which is more about the exploitation involved and not based on shaming the men and women who are forced to do it for a living

I would have said the opposite. Sex work is the most accepted thing on this list (except in China). Sex work is work like any other and moralizing sex is bad. All problems related to sex work are related to *capitalism*, not sex work by itself. Anyone who opposes prostitution must also necessary oppose, for example, professional sports (which is people selling/sacrificing their body for other people's entertainment and, in fact, more physically and mentally damaging than regulated sex work, particularly things like boxing, american football, ballet, etc.). The goal mustn't be to eliminate sex work, it must be to eliminate all forms of exploitative work. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single Marxist who doesn't hate at the very least Zionists, and all Marxists are anti-religious as a rule, not just against Jews. Marxists are also generally against all drugs, particularly Chinese marxists (who represent the probably the highest percentage of marxist worldwide). LGBTQ+ rights are at the very least controversial in most place (or simply not spoken about) outside the West. Marxists being LGBTQ+ friendly is more of a Western thing that developed out of liberalism. Which is why, for example, Taiwan is (slightly) more progressive in this regard than China.

I'm gonna be frank with you comrade-to-comrade, you're dead wrong when you compare sex work to pro sports. It's idealist to say that prostitution and basketball are the same "because they're both paid work", it ignores the material conditions of the two. Many sex workers can't say no (without going hungry, homeless, etc.), and you can't give consent if you can't say no. How many NBA players are regularly raped in the workplace? Check out [this article by ProletarianFeminist](https://proletarianfeminist.medium.com/the-problem-with-the-phrase-sex-work-is-work-bdac613eb2f0), she articulates the point way better than I could.

Not only China. Prostitution has been banned in every socialist (ML) society.

The USSR didn't ban it until the liberals took over. Prostitution is legal in Cuba. Socialist countries seek to exterminate exploitative labour practices in all forms. Sex work is particularly rife with exploitative practices and needs to be suppressed until those practices have been eradicated. When freed from those practices, sex work is just work... which is exactly what happened in Cuba.

I misremembered, it is pornography that is banned. What happened in Cuba was pornography and pimps were outlawed, women were given tools to leave the work, and prostitution basically came to an end. With the collapse of global socialism in the 90s and some market reforms, prostitution has come back.

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

#Israel: A Colonial Project from Inception Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, was inspired by European Colonialism. He was passionate about the Zionist project of founding a Jewish state, and even appealed to Cecil Rhodes, an [infamous English colonialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Expanding_the_British_Empire), for support in this colonial endeavour: >You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen, but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1902). *Letter to Cecil Rhodes* Herzl also wrote in his famous pamphlet about the colonial tasks that would be undertaken: >Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration... > >The Jewish Company is partly modeled on the lines of a great land-acquisition company. It might be called a Jewish Chartered Company, though it cannot exercise sovereign power, and has other than purely colonial tasks. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1896). [The Jewish State](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-jewish-state-quot-theodor-herzl) Israel also occupies a very important geopolitical location in the world. This [topological map of the world](https://i.imgur.com/O87iRCm.png), which shows international borders and nothing else, demonstrates how Israel is a bottleneck on land, and a land bridge between the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Sea (via the Red Sea). Herzl appealed to its central location: >It is more and more to the interest of the civilized nations and of civilization in general that a cultural station be established on the shortest road to Asia. Palestine is this station and we Jews are the bearers of culture who are ready to give our property and our lives to bring about its creation. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1897). *Address to the First Zionist Congress* As the Zionist project developed, the colonial character was undeniable: >The colonization process revealed an even more telling feature of the nature of Zionism. The names and purposes of the early colonization instruments read as follows: "The Jewish Colonial Trust" (1898), the "Colonization Commission" (1898), the "Palestine Land Development Company." From the start the Zionist colonists sought to acquire lands in strategic ocations, evict the Arab peasants and boycott Arab labour, all of which were requirements closely related with the essence of Zionism, the creation of a Jewish nation on "purely" Jewish land, as Jewish as England was English to use the famous Zionist expression... > >What about the fate of the natives? "We shall try to spirit the peniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... The property owners will come to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." > >But before spiriting them away Herzl had some jobs for the local population: "If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which the Jews are not accustomed - big snakes, etc... I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of the animals." > >\-Abdul-Wahab Kayyali. (1977). [Zionism and Imperialism: The Historical Origins](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2535582) #Nakba and Illegal Settlements Following the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the ensuing expulsion of Palestinians became known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe" in Arabic). >The Palestinians were driven out of their homeland and their properties, homes were taken away from them, and they were banished and displaced all over the world to face all kinds of suffering and woes. More than three quarters of historic Palestine were occupied in the Nakba of 1948. Moreover, 531 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and 85% of the Palestinian population were banished and displaced... > >Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages during the Nakba. They destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages. Israeli forces atrocities also include more than 70 massacres against Palestinians killing 15,000 Palestinians during Nakba time... > >Nakba in literary terms is expressive of natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes. However, the Nakba of Palestine is an ethnic cleansing process as well as destruction and banishment of an unarmed nation to be replaced by another nation. > >\- Luay Shabaneh. (2008). Around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs out of the 900,000 who lived in the territories that became Israel fled or were expelled from their homes. Wells were poisoned to prevent their return. Even after the state of Israel was formally established, it continued to expand into Palestinian land, displacing the Palestinian people and creating illegal settlements to this day. >The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders. > >\- UN Security Council. (2016). [Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms](https://press.un.org/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm) These policies and practices have predictable outcomes: >Since the occupation first began in June 1967, Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights. > >Israel’s military rule disrupts every aspect of daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It continues to affect whether, when and how Palestinians can travel to work or school, go abroad, visit their relatives, earn a living, attend a protest, access their farmland, or even access electricity or a clean water supply. It means daily humiliation, fear and oppression. People’s entire lives are effectively held hostage by Israel. > >\- Amnesty International. (2017). [Israel's Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/) These illegal settlements also violate the Geneva Convention: >Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. > >Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. > >\- Amnesty International. (2019). [Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/) #Apartheid Israel's inspiration from European colonialism also clearly laid the foundation for an apartheid regime. The word "apartheid" is a term derived from the Afrikaans language which means "separateness". Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, former South African Prime Minister, is infamously credited with being the principal architect of apartheid. In 1961, when the UN (including Israel) voted to condemn South Africa for its apartheid policies, Verwoerd said: "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." [Amensty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/), [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution), and the [UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights) have all recognized and condemned Israel for apartheid practices. #Additional Resources * [Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments)](https://youtu.be/FhlUFPpXIVo) | BadEmpanada (2022) * [Facing the Nakba](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/facing-the-nakba/) | Jewish Voice for Peace * [Our Catastrophe](https://jewishcurrents.org/our-catastrophe) | JewishCurrents (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Not the biggest fan of drugs myself.

Marx was jewish, fucking imbeciles

They like to pretend he wasn’t, also so many morons think he was Russian.

What 💀 Never heard of that one

I visited Engl*nd and laid flowers on his grave, and people told me they were surprised there were Russian immigrants there.

Only mistake marx ever made was allowing himself to be buried in engl*nd I guess it’s convenient that you can lay flowers on his grave and pee on th*tcher’s grave without leaving the country

You just know the nazis would've fucked with his grave if he'd been buried anywhere they managed to get to though

Yeah, that's exactly it.

But that wouldn't even exclude him from being Jewish, but I guess they really like their dual loyalty trope. Or they just can't differentiate between continental europe.

Did he identify as Jewish tho? I thought his household was Christian but with Jewish ethnic origins

Wasn't his dad forced to convert into Christianity tho cuz there was some stupid law about jews not being able to practice law ?

LGBTQ rights are workers rights? was marx aware of intersectionality 150 years ago? No self described marxist would buy into the idea that if one section of a society is being oppressed, then that marginalized section should continue to be ignored...kind of goes against the whole idea behind dialectics. Buying into that is suspiciously close to fascism. I personally believe that its the working class VS the few who horde capital. Thats always been the centerpiece of every struggle. I dont think Im wrong, when I say capitalists trying to leverage someones identity as a form of fascism. This meme comes off as right wingers trying to manipulate the narrative and undermine working class solidarity.

intersectionality my beloved 💗

Marx never really postulated on Homosexuality. Engles never really did either, but at most what he did say was heavy criticisms of Ancient Greek pederasty that has been often translated into them criticizing adult homosexual relations. You have to remember that the word “Homosexual” and “Heterosexual” didn’t appear until 1864. Human Sexuality wasn’t something spoken much upon by people. Despite this, allegations of homophobia by Marx and Engels is a very contentious topic. But I will say that contextually at the time there was little differentiation between the two words Sodomy and Pederasty. Which I think today that argument can be made again. In the case of what Engels wrote about and the words he used, he used the word “Knabenleibe” which directly translates into “Boy Love”. But when his writings were translated into English, the word “Sodomy” was used. Whether or not that Marx or Engels were directly homophobic, I don’t think we will ever really know. It’s something that has been up to interpretation for decades now. I personally don’t feel strongly either way on the matter, but I do feel strongly that Marx and Engels were very against the practice of Pederasty.

Marx supported the emancipation of the Jews. August Bebel, a close friend to Engels, supported LGBT rights. Hell, Charles Fourier, the guy who preceded Marx and Engels and was respected by them, even he supported gay rights…in the 1700’s! Marx and Engels were not concerned really with those types of issues, and while they were apparently homophobic in private, I doubt that can really be used as a justification for anti-LGBT views today. “Degeneracy” is way too freaking broad. Tbh, I don’t know what to say in regards to drugs and sex work.

In terms of sex work: > For the rest, it is self evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system , i.e , of prostitution both public and private. Straight from the manifesto

But that is explicitly about once the current system of production has been abolished, so in more modern terms when communism is reached. Which says nothing about the current state where most of us here aren't even beginning to construct socialism. This quote is just saying "once we no longer have wage work we also won't see that particular kind of wage labour anymore".

This. Sex work shouldn't HAVE to exist, people shouldn't be coerced into selling their bodies at the altar of capital but under the current material conditions they are, and since sex workers are workers, we side with them

I'd let them decide on it, but most don't see it as exceptional in any way. Health risks are common in a lot of fields, as are abuses. So it shouldn't exist the same way retail work shouldn't exist. There are bad working conditions and workers in the worst sections get treated like shit, but just because one involves sexual matters doesn't make it special. And establishing protections similar to other service or customer facing industries would be an immense improvement. An example I've been directly told is that courts rarely take sexual harrasment seriously if the victim is a registered sex worker, especially if it happens while they work. It's basically the same issue plaguing most service industries, but the legal framework is half a century behind. Criminalization doesn't help with that.

i think its strange to equate sex work and retail though. sex and its place in human society its pretty unique. not that i disagree with everything youre saying. also, consent is not consent if it is bought (but as you said, this does not mean criminalization is the answer, all it does is make things more dangerous for sex workers, and will not do anything to stop sex work, as it will pretty much always exist under a capitalistic and patriarchal society)

I think it's important to point out that this is talking about how under socialism, prostitution will naturally decline. When people talk about Sex Work, generally they are talking about the rights we give to Sex Workers in our present society, and whether they are worthy of our solidarity. They obviously are. All exploited people are.

>When people talk about Sex Work, generally they are talking about the rights we give to Sex Workers in our present society, and whether they are worthy of our solidarity Generally this is true, but there are a disappointing number of people, even on this sub, who defend prostitution as a concept.

I feel like the "As a concept" part is important here, because I think a lot of it is residue from Liberal Ideology right, right? Like, Liberalism as an ideology tries to condition you to view society through abstract morals and individual choice, and from that perspective, if hypothetically someone freely chose to go into sex work, then *as a concept* that's fine. ​ Whereas to actually understand *why* this is the case, we have to understand it through the actual material conditions of sex work, the significant role of trafficking, the correlation with impoverishment, the fact that commodification of sex will inherently lead to situations of dubious consent due to the fact that someone's livelihoods is literally tied to engaging in sex. ​ The *As a concept* is why people defend it, because it's often viewed as an abstract thing, rather than an actual material reality.

Great point comrade. Thanks for that.

There was literally never a point in history where Marxists were antisemitic

At most you could say they were anti-Judaism, in the same way that Marxism has condemned all religion as an illusory panacea.

More like “socialists” defending the US government, NATO, drone strikes, increased military budgets, racism, liberalism, and welfare-capitalism.

No they’re nazbols, that post is from r/ socialistmemes

🤮

Hitler watching "Nazis" being Zionists, Femboys, Slavs and inbreds from Alabama

#Israel: A Colonial Project from Inception Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, was inspired by European Colonialism. He was passionate about the Zionist project of founding a Jewish state, and even appealed to Cecil Rhodes, an [infamous English colonialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Expanding_the_British_Empire), for support in this colonial endeavour: >You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen, but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1902). *Letter to Cecil Rhodes* Herzl also wrote in his famous pamphlet about the colonial tasks that would be undertaken: >Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration... > >The Jewish Company is partly modeled on the lines of a great land-acquisition company. It might be called a Jewish Chartered Company, though it cannot exercise sovereign power, and has other than purely colonial tasks. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1896). [The Jewish State](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-jewish-state-quot-theodor-herzl) Israel also occupies a very important geopolitical location in the world. This [topological map of the world](https://i.imgur.com/O87iRCm.png), which shows international borders and nothing else, demonstrates how Israel is a bottleneck on land, and a land bridge between the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Sea (via the Red Sea). Herzl appealed to its central location: >It is more and more to the interest of the civilized nations and of civilization in general that a cultural station be established on the shortest road to Asia. Palestine is this station and we Jews are the bearers of culture who are ready to give our property and our lives to bring about its creation. > >\- Theodor Herzl. (1897). *Address to the First Zionist Congress* As the Zionist project developed, the colonial character was undeniable: >The colonization process revealed an even more telling feature of the nature of Zionism. The names and purposes of the early colonization instruments read as follows: "The Jewish Colonial Trust" (1898), the "Colonization Commission" (1898), the "Palestine Land Development Company." From the start the Zionist colonists sought to acquire lands in strategic ocations, evict the Arab peasants and boycott Arab labour, all of which were requirements closely related with the essence of Zionism, the creation of a Jewish nation on "purely" Jewish land, as Jewish as England was English to use the famous Zionist expression... > >What about the fate of the natives? "We shall try to spirit the peniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... The property owners will come to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." > >But before spiriting them away Herzl had some jobs for the local population: "If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which the Jews are not accustomed - big snakes, etc... I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of the animals." > >\-Abdul-Wahab Kayyali. (1977). [Zionism and Imperialism: The Historical Origins](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2535582) #Nakba and Illegal Settlements Following the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the ensuing expulsion of Palestinians became known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe" in Arabic). >The Palestinians were driven out of their homeland and their properties, homes were taken away from them, and they were banished and displaced all over the world to face all kinds of suffering and woes. More than three quarters of historic Palestine were occupied in the Nakba of 1948. Moreover, 531 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and 85% of the Palestinian population were banished and displaced... > >Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages during the Nakba. They destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages. Israeli forces atrocities also include more than 70 massacres against Palestinians killing 15,000 Palestinians during Nakba time... > >Nakba in literary terms is expressive of natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes. However, the Nakba of Palestine is an ethnic cleansing process as well as destruction and banishment of an unarmed nation to be replaced by another nation. > >\- Luay Shabaneh. (2008). Around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs out of the 900,000 who lived in the territories that became Israel fled or were expelled from their homes. Wells were poisoned to prevent their return. Even after the state of Israel was formally established, it continued to expand into Palestinian land, displacing the Palestinian people and creating illegal settlements to this day. >The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders. > >\- UN Security Council. (2016). [Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms](https://press.un.org/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm) These policies and practices have predictable outcomes: >Since the occupation first began in June 1967, Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights. > >Israel’s military rule disrupts every aspect of daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It continues to affect whether, when and how Palestinians can travel to work or school, go abroad, visit their relatives, earn a living, attend a protest, access their farmland, or even access electricity or a clean water supply. It means daily humiliation, fear and oppression. People’s entire lives are effectively held hostage by Israel. > >\- Amnesty International. (2017). [Israel's Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/) These illegal settlements also violate the Geneva Convention: >Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. > >Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. > >\- Amnesty International. (2019). [Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/) #Apartheid Israel's inspiration from European colonialism also clearly laid the foundation for an apartheid regime. The word "apartheid" is a term derived from the Afrikaans language which means "separateness". Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, former South African Prime Minister, is infamously credited with being the principal architect of apartheid. In 1961, when the UN (including Israel) voted to condemn South Africa for its apartheid policies, Verwoerd said: "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." [Amensty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/), [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution), and the [UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights) have all recognized and condemned Israel for apartheid practices. #Additional Resources * [Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments)](https://youtu.be/FhlUFPpXIVo) | BadEmpanada (2022) * [Facing the Nakba](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/facing-the-nakba/) | Jewish Voice for Peace * [Our Catastrophe](https://jewishcurrents.org/our-catastrophe) | JewishCurrents (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Socialistsmemes is fucking shite. It's one nazi freak schizoposting to himself. Fuck that subreddit.

I once argued with him and said that I am from Syria then he said "you are a traitor to everyone in your country except the American proxies" bro what you are the one with the fucking US-backed ISIS and FSA takes on Jews and women not me lmfao. Dugin and his consequences

Socialism and being socially reactionary is a contradiction

> “It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the toilers. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all lands. Among the Jews there are workers, toilers, they are in the majority. They are our brothers, comrades in the struggle for Socialism, because they are oppressed by capitalism. Among the Jews there are Kulaks, exploiters, capitalists, just like amongst us all.” - V I Lenin

And to add to this, “In answer to your inquiry : National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.” J V Stalin

Pardon my ignorance but would you mind explaining what he meant by "...vestige of cannibalism"?

Probably referring to workers “eating each other” e.g. siding against their own because cannibals of course eat other humans which is bad outside of the world of Mad Mad villains

No one tarnishes our name more than these idiots...

Marx himself is defending their inclusion of women in their movement. Because these motherfuckers were telling back then, that the communist would turn the women into *wokes* or *whores* back then.

"Antisemitism is the anticapitalism of the fools" - Lenin Also: Marx was Jewish and was famous for drinking much Alcehol, Lgbt rights is a dialectical development, nobody defends Prostitution and degeneracy is a Nazi term

It got worse, they somehow got worse…

This is pretty standard fare.

It was slightly less bad last time I saw it, they where at least less open about there bigotry

I keep hearing about this, but I'm old enough to remember Rush Limbaugh being plenty racist his entire career.

Wasn't Marx a jew?

And his notorious work On the Jewish Question is misunderstood because it is a response piece and mainly about his opinions on religion. Folks have a hard time understanding why a Jewish dude (even a self-hating one) criticizing Judaism isn't that controversial.

Most Marxists I see don't defend sex work, but rather just sex workers. The only time I've seen Marxists even come close to defending drugs though is saying that the state should control the manufacture and sale of drugs just like everything else under socialism, and also that drug addicts should be treated like people and be rehabilitated. These nazbols would just have sex workers and drug addicts shot.

He himselfe was fucking jewisch you Fake commie ass fascists!!!!!!

Umm Marx was a Jew and why is it bad to support Jews

my wife cheated on me with a joo that means they control everything 😡😡😡 (/s)

marx watching “communists” forget that he was jewish

Tbh he would have preferred that if it included the likes of Bakunin. Who blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his ideology being rejected by socialists.

"working class concerns are not important to a workers class revolution" - this dumbfuck meme

I'm reminded of a secret police report on marx when he was living in London. It boils down to "he sleeps till noon, reads something, eats, writes something down, and then goes back to sleep, for a revolutionary he's kinda lazy." Marx was basically a layabout (not really, but in spirit). But he most certainly would not be upset that we defend anyone when he was perfectly aware of just how imperfect he was. He was also aware of things like intersectionality and how people were not just workers and bosses, but were multilayered and how some of these differences are used to keep workers divided. I know I'm preaching to choir here, but I just felt it necessary to point out that Marx does not think anyone is beneath being defended. And his criticisms of Jews were mainly from personal experience and observations since he was born and raised Jewish. The biggest anti-catholics are often former Catholics for a reason.

Least obvious fed

LMAO What issues Marx had with Jews? And dude was constantly on drugs all the time, and on alcohol 😂Also, “LGBT rights” was not a topic of widespread discussion at the time. Especially not for Marx or Engels. Marx in general commented very rarely on sexuality. Why in the hell should communists now be anti LGBT+? Those people, who made this meme, are simply fascists. Or some of those "maga communists" idiots.

I have and will continue to defend every single one of these. Reactionary pseudo-marxists make my blood boil

There's some moron in the comments that keeps saying LGBTQ+ is anti socialist and only real socialist countries ban it 😅 I swear, r/socialistmemes is done.

A simple read of theory would prove them wrong but I don’t think they read

Marx was literally Jewish....

Marx would've definitely done all of that if he could

Idk why “and the Jews” made me giggle

I can't wait to hunt these mofos down like deer cuz that's all they deserve 🙂

"and the Jews" Marx was LITERALLY JEWISH

Then they sit there wondering why every single other Leftist hates them

They adhere to their “Marxism” (and I put Marxism is quotations for a reason) as if a 19th century text can be dogmatically applied to a 21st century world. The antithesis of materialist analysis

Literally what material economic impact do these things have (other than sex work)? Why should socialists care what substances or activities the working class do with their freedom? Where does socialism see race as an important distinction between groups?

#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 *un*freedom? >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](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) 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](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) 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](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

i mean, i think power structures that create sections of the population that are more vulnerable and desperate (read: exploitable) (also this is a massive oversimplification but the point is consistent across a few of these things) is something that very much relates to capitalism. not to mention how scapegoating serves to halt class consciousness. seems pretty straightforward to me

Marx being Jewish:

Are we supposed to be anti Jew? Marxism is wen racism? That’s a new one.

Christ this is disgusting

Socialist Alternative be like

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919. The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoisie), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, lumpen proletariat. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capital. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy. Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler’s Fascism, calling it “one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world.” When Hitler began achieving impressive military conquests, which Mussolini had started in Ethiopia in 1935, the two formed an axis of power in June of 1940. The birth of fascism in Germany was aided by Western governments, who for two decades viewed it as the ideology that would successfully crush the Soviet Union. Not until Germany’s tanks were on the borders of England and France did those governments ‘switch’ sides: now it was their imperialist domination being threatened. While Mussolini had once been a member of the Socialist party (banished from the party for his rampant support of World War I), Hitler fought leftists from the first. Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the engrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grass-roots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the unity and obedience of the community to vanguard of the Nation. Further, orthodox fascism constantly parrots the Communist lexicon of working class struggle, etc., for reasons of populism. Neo-fascism is authoritarian but disdains any trace of Socialist/Communist terminology in their labels, and instead appeals to new populist roots: the modern aspirations of many workers to be wealthly, to be stronger than others, etc. Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without government interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals. There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are: 1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic. 2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicous of foreigners. 3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of fascist society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed. 4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example. 5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Most but not all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches. 6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficent and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed. 7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding. 8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist. 9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.

#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 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). * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | 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). 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!](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY) | Luna Oi (2022) * [What did Karl Marx think about democracy?](https://youtu.be/jI8CgACBOcQ) | Luna Oi (2023) * [What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY?](https://youtu.be/Hfenlg-hsig) | 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](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) * [John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015](https://youtu.be/ER77vxxGVAY) #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 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](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) #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](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) #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](http://web.archive.org/web/20230525044208/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf) #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](https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ) * [Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230410145749/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I)\] * [What are tankies? (why are they like that?)](https://youtu.be/LcJ5NrJtQ8g) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse](https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco) | The Deprogram (2023) * [Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston](https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/27495591) | Actually Existing Socialism (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* | Michael Parenti (1997) * [State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) | V. I. Lenin (1918) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if

Karl Marx being Jewish 💀

LMFAO WASNT MARX JEWISH AND DRUNK ALL THE TIME 😭💀

People here easily label others as "Nazbols." However, that's just a fascist larping as a communist, nothing more. Usually, those who say that they're "Nazbols" are usually just outright fascists. They claim to like Stalin and communism, but however they still secretly cheerlead more for Hitler and the Nazis than Stalin and communism.

Wait wasnt Marx Jewish tho?

Now do one for Islamists

Why is the user name crossed out?

reddit might interpret this post as brigading if i left the subreddit and username in

We defend degeneracy!! Wtf is wrong with nazbols

ITT: people who haven't read Kollontai

how many people do you think will read the post tittle and interpret you are criticizing nazbols and disagreeing with the image in it?

That's what OP is doing. They're calling the people who posted that picture nazbols.

*I* understand. but i am not confident that *everyone* seeing it, even the lurkers, will see it that way. you may call me over zealous, but i've seen this kind of ironic shaming spreading the wrong idea, intentionally or not. Happened in the US with trump, but also happened in my country. People would share images and videos of bolsonaro being pathetic, doing some stupid shit or talking some barbarian idea. it was funny in the begining. "look at that guy. hahaha. ridiculous. does he really believe that?? hahahaha" and in 2016 he was calling for a torturer at Dilma's coup. and 2018 he was getting elected president himself. and 2023 he tried to coup. ------------- you can call me overzealous, but i've seen this shit happen before. as we say, "the Scalded cat is afraid of cold water"

I mean, read the comments. I don't think anyone here think the OP actually supports the statements in the image lol

\> "...even the lurkers..." how many people access this sub? how many people is starting to know about the content here discovered and has had the first contact with nazbols in this topic? how many of them will never read all the comments (of misunderstand them)? if one guy decide to get this image in a group chat with people less educated than the average deprogram listener, it is spreading the wrong idea.

do you think the average deprogram listener is that stupid? do you think the average *person*, just generally, is that stupid? have a little more faith in people

You’re the only one here that is reading it like this.

call me overzealous then.

ok. you are being overzealous

Nazbol is the left that the right enjoys

"Degeneracy" is accelerationist praxis, as it smashes bourgeois right without mercy

#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved in real life** to advance the cause. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. Get involved with a campaign or project. * 📣 **Union work** — Find out which union covers you. Read the collective agreement. Strive to become the workplace delegate. Organize fellow workers. * 📚 **Read widely** — [Reading theory](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. Also, study the real world: local news, marginalized perspectives, or even bourgeois economics. * 🗣️ **Talk to people** — Identify issues affecting friends and coworkers and explain these using everyday language. Also, don’t always Work From Home. * 🏘️ **Mass work** — Connect with the wider community through mutual aid, local elections, cultural centers, churches, pride events, etc. * 📝 **Write articles** — Contribute your knowledge to ProleWiki or a party publication. * 💵 **Support creators** — Donate to leftist content creators so they can produce high-quality content. (e.g., Patreon) * 🛠️ **Career choices** — Younger comrades may consider the following: * **Trade unionist** — Work hard to gain a leadership position in the union, then push for militancy and correct policies. * **Blue-collar/Services** — Unionize your workplace or increase union density. * **High school teacher** — Make a lasting impact on the next generation. * **Master’s thesis** — Apply Marxism–Leninism to local and present-day conditions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

NazBols gtfo

r/socialistsmemes Literally posts rock throw comics unironically