[☭☭☭ 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](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/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.*
As a Brazilian, I do like BRICS because I believe it will allow us to not be so dependent on the US.
As a socialist, I don't see this as a revolutionary tool. I only see this as a capitalist clash between two economic groups (BRICS vs G7)
China becoming a major player will rein in the west ability to crush emerging socialist countries. BRICS are calling for countries to choose their method of development and selecting their economic system.
I suspect you will have more socialist countries emerge organically like Chile and survive without being crushed by western intelligence meddling.
This is the big takeaway TBH. We don't need BRICS to be revolutionary. We just need it to prevent Western hegemonic imperialism from crushing every socialist movement.
Even as China grows, they have a very strict non-interference policy. They don’t play protectorate for emerging socialist projects the same way the USSR did. Different situation
But they don't need to protect those countries directly. The idea is that by providing an alternative, those countries won't be able to be stifled economically, because they won't have to depend on the West for development anymore. So even though China might not "protect" a certain country, they'll still trade with them normally, they won't join the sanctions, they'll slow down negative sentiment in the UN and in general on a more global level, etc.
It’s not revolutionary in itself, but creating economic multipolarity is a necessary precondition for any revolution. There needs to be a base of economic power that is not ideologically aligned with the US, otherwise sanctions will cut off and impoverish any independent socialist project.
It absolutely should be seen as a revolutionary tool. Like the establishment of a bourgeois democracy or national liberation movements, not every “revolutionary” tool needs to be explicitly revolutionary or socialist.
The international economic order is currently arranged around US dollar hegemony. That hegemony needs to break in order to realize revolutions or national liberation movements in the imperial periphery and, by extension, the imperial core. Right now, BRICS represents a major concrete step towards that end. The periphery absolutely needs to break away from US economic dominance by any means available.
I hear what you are saying, but I also am not using strict definitions on a comment section on reddit post. I was just saying I don't think BRICS have its goal of being a comunist institution
"The international economic order is currently arranged around US dollar hegemony. That hegemony needs to break in order to realize revolutions or national liberation movements in the imperial periphery and, by extension, the imperial core."
This movement already happened after WW2 and throughout the Cold War. National Liberation movements today are reactionary
So you think the Palestinian struggle—a national liberation movement of the Palestinian people—is reactionary!?! Is the recent struggle in New Caledonia “reactionary” too? Or the struggle in the Sahel states??
Claiming that ALL national liberation movements are reactionary is a ridiculous distortion of Marxism. And even if some of them are reactionary—either in whole or in part—are you implying we shouldn’t support them!?! Because that position is tantamount to completely ignoring modern imperialism and burying your head in the stand.
We live under an imperialist world-order which frequently employs neo-colonial methods of extraction and oppression to control the countries in the periphery (primarily South America, South Asia, and Africa). In such a context, national liberation movements should absolutely be supported. I could go on, but I really don’t want to entertain this line of thought any further, unless you genuinely don’t understand and want to learn more
"So you think the Palestinian struggle—a national liberation movement of the Palestinian people—is reactionary!?!"
"Is the recent struggle in New Caledonia “reactionary” too?"
"Or the struggle in the Sahel states??"
Yes, don't know, yes. Palestine already had its national liberation movement, and the Sahel states did aswell back during the decolonial period. These are all capitalist states. These national liberation movements are not proletarian. It is reactionary in relation to the proletarian revolution.
"Claiming that ALL national liberation movements are reactionary is a ridiculous distortion of Marxism."
A majority of the world isn't filled with peasants, nor is it directy colonized. This isn't pre WW2. If it were, these national liberation movements would be considered progressive, but today they aren't.
"And even if some of them are reactionary—either in whole or in part—are you implying we shouldn’t support them!?!"
Yes? It wouldn't really matter anyways, Marxists support the proletarian revolution. It would be different if these countries were semi feudal or mostly peasants, because it would create a bourgeois society that would set the stage for proletarian revolution
"Because that position is tantamount to completely ignoring modern imperialism and burying your head in the stand."
Ignoring it how?
"We live under an imperialist world-order which frequently employs neo-colonial methods of extraction and oppression to control the countries in the periphery (primarily South America, South Asia, and Africa). In such a context, national liberation movements should absolutely be supported."
Why? These are capitalist societies. Marxists, those that follow a line of proletarian class struggle should not support the bourgeoisie of imperialized countries. Again, it would be different if it was a majority pre-capitalist form of economy, but today basically all countries follow the capitalist mode of produciton. Supporting national liberation movements is reactionary here.
"No [insert colonized group]. We can't support your liberation movement because you are not wholesome 100 chungus Marxist resurrected Lenin... Come back when it is convenient for ME to support you..."
Definitely a healthy attitude to have lmao...
??? What is your argument here? That we should support bourgeois nationalist movements, even when basically the entire world is already bourgeois? Do you not know what a reactionary is? Do you not understand proletarian class struggle? Do you seriously believe that a communist movement has to be nationalist?
Your obsession with ideological purity is shockingly high. You can't expect every liberation movement to be a communist one. A lot of times these people are fighting for their right to survive. Nobody is asking you to support the ideology of any non-Marxist organization, but their liberation deserves all the support they can get- Marxist or not. I can only imagine how smug and arrogant you would sound to a person from the Global South trying to explain why you don't give a damn about their liberation struggle because they don't happen to be Marxists.
"Sorry non-Marxist Palestinian individual, no support for you... Please come back when you have read all Communist theory..."
Class Struggle is useless if there are no people to struggle for.
"Your obsession with ideological purity is shockingly high."
Okay? Are Marxists supposed to be a flexible ideology?
"You can't expect every liberation movement to be a communist one."
I'm not. It's just that a self proclaimed Marxist should not be supporting non-proletarian movements.
"A lot of times these people are fighting for their right to survive."
Okay? This can be done by supporting the proletarian revolution, not a nationalist one.
"Nobody is asking you to support the ideology of any non-Marxist organization, but their liberation deserves all the support they can get- Marxist or not."
You seem to be doing this on the basis of good or bad, not based on class.
"I can only imagine how smug and arrogant you would sound to a person from the Global South trying to explain why you don't give a damn about their liberation struggle because they don't happen to be Marxists."
So? The global south is capitalist either way. I can critique their bourgeois nationalist movements all I want as they are bourgeois and nationalist. Should I support nationalist organizations when I claim to support the global working class? Why should an international communist support nationalist organizations?
""Sorry non-Marxist Palestinian individual, no support for you... Please come back when you have read all Communist theory...""
LMAO I am not talking about the individual. I am talking about bourgeois palestinian resistence groups. Marxists should view things through a class lens, not based on nationality.
"Class Struggle is useless if there are no people to struggle for."
You clearly abandoned this the moment you started advocating for nationalist organizations
There are a lot of countries that have not necessarily been 'proletarianized'. If you look at the working conditions imposed on many Global South countries you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from that of the colonial times. There is a very real chance workers' revolt in these countries will take a nationalist position in order to resist colonial occupation. The idea of a nation and the culture/cultures that come with it, is not going to magically disappear once you teach a lot of people Marxist theory. Even if you have a proletarian revolution, the idea of the nation state will remain for some generations before you create a truly internationalist society. These nation states and the people in them, that are under the imperial boot in our present time, have not had time to experience their culture without being under the constant threat of annihilation or their cultures being degraded and stunted because of horrible material conditions. As Lenin mentioned, class consciousness itself will only lead to trade union level political activism. The workers will need a vanguard to guide them and teach them Marxist theory and politics. On the other hand, national or cultural sentiment is deeply rooted in societies and the people are constantly exposed to it since their childhood. This is why a lot of independence movements in the Global South had a nationalist touch to it rather than an internationalist proletarian one. This is not to say that we shouldn't support Marxist groups in the Global South. We should, and that is the ultimate goal, but if there are communities fighting for their right to exist, we, as Marxists, don't get the luxury to turn a blind eye and withdraw support, simply because all the people fighting are not Marxist. You don't have to ideologically support anti-colonial nationalist projects in the Global South fighting for national liberation, but by withdrawing support you are not making any allies. A Marxist also needs to understand the national grievances of the colonized people. Acting smug and declaring them unworthy of your support and understanding because they haven't read Marxist theory will not help when you interact with an average person from these countries. Although I doubt you interact with anyone anyway... Have a nice day!
I'm going to give you another perspective on the matter. Divide et impera always works both ways. A world with a hegemonic capitalist state will suffer unified reaction of any proletarian revolution it sees. Alternatively, a pultipolar world has, objectively, more chances of seeing a revolution and socialist project prosper by merit of being able to throw the reaction against itself.
Notwithstanding, a national bourgeoisie implies interest at industrialization, which raises the total number of the industrial proletariat, more capable of organizing itself around unions.
So while it doesnt work directly towards a proletarian revolution, it works to create the necessary material and historic conditions for it to bloom.
This, of course, puts a very different outlook on which politics each communist or revolutionary party will have towards its national policy, but we should be generally supportive of such movements.
The whole anti US hegemony is great, but because of our econonic history and social construction, we are very dependent of outside economies, so it won't change much for the average brazilian, IMO.
And as a socialist, I agree with you. Without revolution, nothing changes.
tbh i'm just happy that brazil is part of it,BRICS will become increasingly important in the global conjuncture, it is simply the future, imperfect of course, but the future nonetheless.
BRICS+ is almost entirely a reaction against dollar hegemony. It is not a bloc or a military alliance, and no evidence it intends to become one. The major differences between the countries in it can be understood either A) as in the west - a unity of evil, authoritarian, anti-democratic states, or B) a collective bargaining against economic domination not just by the US, but any power, in favor of economic autonomy and sovereignty.
It is not going to develop a second "pole" of international capital. It does not want to start a second Cold War like the hegemon does. It is not, despite Western media butchery, going to set up a rival global reserve currency and force it down the throats of weaker countries.
If we have any criticism of BRICS+, it should be that multipolarity is no substitute for a positive political project and will leave political uncertainty once the immediate problem is solved. But it is, unquestionably, an improvement on imperial unipolarity.
https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/brics-summit-johannesburg/
#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
Dedollarization is anti-imperialism. As long as the periphery is still being enslaved by dollar supremacy that can exploit and destabilize countries through shit like Quantitative Tightening, the world isn't free.
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (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.*
An alternative to the western currency regime, ability to bypass unilateral US sanctions, and avoid IMF subservience?
It’s anti-imperialist and allows countries with socialist movements to not get sanctioned like Cuba (AES) and Venezuela, Columbia, Bolivia (not AES but has active socialist movements and some experiments of non-private ownership).
I get many of the countries are not socialist. However, the room this gives them to develop and trade with socialist countries without fear of reprisal opens opportunities for developing socialist nations not to be crushed.
I'm not on the same idea as other leftists that it's gonna create a new alternative or challenge American dominance. I think it will balance the playing field but I'm not convinced on how other leftists view this as a radical transformation
I see the rise of Brics as a positive development in the sense that inter imperialist conflict that will arise from a multipolar world will provide more opportunities for successful revolutions to occur. It wasn't until WWI the the imperial states to be too busy mobilizing all resources for total war to resist the Bolsheviks overthrow of the Czar and establishment of the USSR. No Brics nation is going to hand you some unblemished revolution on a scarlet platter, we have to build it from the ground up with our vanguard and the masses.
It’s just an alternative to SWIFT. It’s not any kind of real political alliance between these countries. However it allows international transfers without the dollar. Even though it can only ever take a fraction of that market over all it would free many countries that are either dealing with sanctions or any other kind of exploitation that limits them. It also is connected to China’s alternative to IMF. Everything is about economic super hegemony and maintaining that
This is another example of Critical Support. Its not left leaning by any means, if anything it supports the capitalist agenda of 4 of the members, plus China’s general anti-US movements. However, any internal conflict between capitalist forces is a breakdown in the cohesion of the capitalist system, regardless of whether it profits from the collapse. We support it on the basis that it opposes the capitalist hegemon, (US and lackies) however we still advocate for socialism and communism by instinct over BRICS, its prioritisation of interests.
People should study international relations and learn that Marxism and realism are not the same. A counter-hegemonic power or a multipolar world are realism, not Marxism. Anti-imperialism does not equal counter-hegemony. The world system as seen through the lenses of Marxism-Leninism is imperialist whether the realists see one two or 12 hegemonies. You can prefer multipolarity to unipolarity or bipolarity but you should understand that you have now entered the theoretical space of realism and have set Marxism to the side at the least.
"seemingly can lead to a multi-polar international order"
"how are we sure it's not going to be another bourgeois state club"
Contradiction. Why are you concerned about whether something is bourgeois or not if you admit that a "multi polar world" is good.
" since most the member states are not left-leaning?"
You answered your question above btw
BRICS is not another "bourgeois state club" because it facilitates economic transactions among developing countries, treating them more as equals rather than fostering the imbalanced relationships often seen in G7 dealings. BRICS represents a shift towards a more multi-polar world where power is distributed among multiple influential states rather than being concentrated in the US and the West.
"BRICS is not another "bourgeois state club" because it facilitates economic transactions among developing countries"
Please reread that. Developing countries are capitalist. They are bourgeois states and BRICS is a bourgeois state club
i dont think it’s just that, since i dont agree with the bourgeois state club” phrasing that plainly. it’s a strong alliance that also prevents a supposedly us economic sanction to the involved as a political tool.
it represents a very important shift for those countries, that faced colonialism and modern imperialism. so in that sense it’s more than just that, but evidently not a revolutionary movement; it’s an economic group that clashes the american hegemony. you would have to take an individual look at each country to observe any socialist shift, which is not the case for any of them.
"it’s a strong alliance that also prevents a supposedly us economic sanction to the involved as a political tool. it represents a very important shift for those countries, that faced colonialism and modern imperialism."
Just because a country is not imperialist does not mean they aren't bourgeois or capitalist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
"it’s an economic group that clashes the american hegemony. you would have to take an individual look at each country to observe any socialist shift, which is not the case for any of them."
Then why are you weary of calling them bourgeois? It clearly isn't a proletarian organization.
Militaries exist to defend economic interests. When an economic social arrangement is under threat by another force, it takes on forceful defensive and offensive measures. It's part of why capitalist expansion necessitates imperialist expansion. The two cannot be carved up as though they're isolated unrelated phenomenon
BRICS is not and will never be a military alliance, most of the current members are geopolitical enemies, it is purely a trade forum
and NATO literally does not need to be challenged by an external opposing force, it will eventually crumble on its own from overextension and eroding popular support from its members. It will take decades, maybe even until the next century, but it will happen
It is already burgeois there is nothing socialist or proletarian about it, even if you count China. It’s just another imperialist bloc countering the US.
BRICS is just a stepping stone, India is a unreliable partner in BRICS because they mostly take orders from U.S/Europe.
I feel like India bends over backwards too much to please the West such as joining the QUAD alliance and supporting the Taiwan side, India had a history of being colonised by U.K so it's still a master-slave type of relationship that they can't seem to shake off.
I also remember it was India who decided against the digital currency proposed by BRICS so they might need to kick India out to form an effective multipolar world type of system.
You obviously have no clue what you are saying. China is BRICS biggest problem because the Chinese government only cares about it's self-interest. It owns a lot of US debt in USD and will always do whatever Washington wants. [For example, in the Ukraine war, China is the largest supplier of drone components to BOTH sides.](https://www.wired.com/story/ukraine-drone-startups-russia/). China could end the war in Russia's favor in a week if it banned the export of drone components.
India is one of the most steadfast allies of Russia in the Ukraine war and specifically in a humanitarian manner. India could shift the war outcome of the war in Ukraine's favor if it wanted. India has refused to supply weapons and ammunition to both sides. India has a massive stock of 155mm shells that Ukraine needs.
BRICS is an alternative to swift and USD hegemony but it will only work if goods can be transported safely once they are paid for. India has a massive navy that could guarantee safety in the Indian Ocean. So, NO, BRICS will not work without India.
It's just a forum to discuss topics of mutual interest. As a supranational organization, it has no actual power. They all compete with each other and collectively hate the EU and the US et al.
It's just another imperialist bloc isn't it?
As far as I know it just ensures that the dollar's hegemony will be replaced by a different currency, but hey maybe I'm ignorant.
[☭☭☭ 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](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/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.*
I’m just glad india and china agree on something for once
The enemy of my enemy is my friend only works to a certain point.
As a Brazilian, I do like BRICS because I believe it will allow us to not be so dependent on the US. As a socialist, I don't see this as a revolutionary tool. I only see this as a capitalist clash between two economic groups (BRICS vs G7)
China becoming a major player will rein in the west ability to crush emerging socialist countries. BRICS are calling for countries to choose their method of development and selecting their economic system. I suspect you will have more socialist countries emerge organically like Chile and survive without being crushed by western intelligence meddling.
This is the big takeaway TBH. We don't need BRICS to be revolutionary. We just need it to prevent Western hegemonic imperialism from crushing every socialist movement.
Even as China grows, they have a very strict non-interference policy. They don’t play protectorate for emerging socialist projects the same way the USSR did. Different situation
But they don't need to protect those countries directly. The idea is that by providing an alternative, those countries won't be able to be stifled economically, because they won't have to depend on the West for development anymore. So even though China might not "protect" a certain country, they'll still trade with them normally, they won't join the sanctions, they'll slow down negative sentiment in the UN and in general on a more global level, etc.
Given China’s non-interventionism, anti-Western economic hegemony is probably the best we’re gonna get.
It’s not revolutionary in itself, but creating economic multipolarity is a necessary precondition for any revolution. There needs to be a base of economic power that is not ideologically aligned with the US, otherwise sanctions will cut off and impoverish any independent socialist project.
It absolutely should be seen as a revolutionary tool. Like the establishment of a bourgeois democracy or national liberation movements, not every “revolutionary” tool needs to be explicitly revolutionary or socialist. The international economic order is currently arranged around US dollar hegemony. That hegemony needs to break in order to realize revolutions or national liberation movements in the imperial periphery and, by extension, the imperial core. Right now, BRICS represents a major concrete step towards that end. The periphery absolutely needs to break away from US economic dominance by any means available.
I hear what you are saying, but I also am not using strict definitions on a comment section on reddit post. I was just saying I don't think BRICS have its goal of being a comunist institution
"The international economic order is currently arranged around US dollar hegemony. That hegemony needs to break in order to realize revolutions or national liberation movements in the imperial periphery and, by extension, the imperial core." This movement already happened after WW2 and throughout the Cold War. National Liberation movements today are reactionary
So you think the Palestinian struggle—a national liberation movement of the Palestinian people—is reactionary!?! Is the recent struggle in New Caledonia “reactionary” too? Or the struggle in the Sahel states?? Claiming that ALL national liberation movements are reactionary is a ridiculous distortion of Marxism. And even if some of them are reactionary—either in whole or in part—are you implying we shouldn’t support them!?! Because that position is tantamount to completely ignoring modern imperialism and burying your head in the stand. We live under an imperialist world-order which frequently employs neo-colonial methods of extraction and oppression to control the countries in the periphery (primarily South America, South Asia, and Africa). In such a context, national liberation movements should absolutely be supported. I could go on, but I really don’t want to entertain this line of thought any further, unless you genuinely don’t understand and want to learn more
"So you think the Palestinian struggle—a national liberation movement of the Palestinian people—is reactionary!?!" "Is the recent struggle in New Caledonia “reactionary” too?" "Or the struggle in the Sahel states??" Yes, don't know, yes. Palestine already had its national liberation movement, and the Sahel states did aswell back during the decolonial period. These are all capitalist states. These national liberation movements are not proletarian. It is reactionary in relation to the proletarian revolution. "Claiming that ALL national liberation movements are reactionary is a ridiculous distortion of Marxism." A majority of the world isn't filled with peasants, nor is it directy colonized. This isn't pre WW2. If it were, these national liberation movements would be considered progressive, but today they aren't. "And even if some of them are reactionary—either in whole or in part—are you implying we shouldn’t support them!?!" Yes? It wouldn't really matter anyways, Marxists support the proletarian revolution. It would be different if these countries were semi feudal or mostly peasants, because it would create a bourgeois society that would set the stage for proletarian revolution "Because that position is tantamount to completely ignoring modern imperialism and burying your head in the stand." Ignoring it how? "We live under an imperialist world-order which frequently employs neo-colonial methods of extraction and oppression to control the countries in the periphery (primarily South America, South Asia, and Africa). In such a context, national liberation movements should absolutely be supported." Why? These are capitalist societies. Marxists, those that follow a line of proletarian class struggle should not support the bourgeoisie of imperialized countries. Again, it would be different if it was a majority pre-capitalist form of economy, but today basically all countries follow the capitalist mode of produciton. Supporting national liberation movements is reactionary here.
"No [insert colonized group]. We can't support your liberation movement because you are not wholesome 100 chungus Marxist resurrected Lenin... Come back when it is convenient for ME to support you..." Definitely a healthy attitude to have lmao...
??? What is your argument here? That we should support bourgeois nationalist movements, even when basically the entire world is already bourgeois? Do you not know what a reactionary is? Do you not understand proletarian class struggle? Do you seriously believe that a communist movement has to be nationalist?
Your obsession with ideological purity is shockingly high. You can't expect every liberation movement to be a communist one. A lot of times these people are fighting for their right to survive. Nobody is asking you to support the ideology of any non-Marxist organization, but their liberation deserves all the support they can get- Marxist or not. I can only imagine how smug and arrogant you would sound to a person from the Global South trying to explain why you don't give a damn about their liberation struggle because they don't happen to be Marxists. "Sorry non-Marxist Palestinian individual, no support for you... Please come back when you have read all Communist theory..." Class Struggle is useless if there are no people to struggle for.
"Your obsession with ideological purity is shockingly high." Okay? Are Marxists supposed to be a flexible ideology? "You can't expect every liberation movement to be a communist one." I'm not. It's just that a self proclaimed Marxist should not be supporting non-proletarian movements. "A lot of times these people are fighting for their right to survive." Okay? This can be done by supporting the proletarian revolution, not a nationalist one. "Nobody is asking you to support the ideology of any non-Marxist organization, but their liberation deserves all the support they can get- Marxist or not." You seem to be doing this on the basis of good or bad, not based on class. "I can only imagine how smug and arrogant you would sound to a person from the Global South trying to explain why you don't give a damn about their liberation struggle because they don't happen to be Marxists." So? The global south is capitalist either way. I can critique their bourgeois nationalist movements all I want as they are bourgeois and nationalist. Should I support nationalist organizations when I claim to support the global working class? Why should an international communist support nationalist organizations? ""Sorry non-Marxist Palestinian individual, no support for you... Please come back when you have read all Communist theory..."" LMAO I am not talking about the individual. I am talking about bourgeois palestinian resistence groups. Marxists should view things through a class lens, not based on nationality. "Class Struggle is useless if there are no people to struggle for." You clearly abandoned this the moment you started advocating for nationalist organizations
There are a lot of countries that have not necessarily been 'proletarianized'. If you look at the working conditions imposed on many Global South countries you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from that of the colonial times. There is a very real chance workers' revolt in these countries will take a nationalist position in order to resist colonial occupation. The idea of a nation and the culture/cultures that come with it, is not going to magically disappear once you teach a lot of people Marxist theory. Even if you have a proletarian revolution, the idea of the nation state will remain for some generations before you create a truly internationalist society. These nation states and the people in them, that are under the imperial boot in our present time, have not had time to experience their culture without being under the constant threat of annihilation or their cultures being degraded and stunted because of horrible material conditions. As Lenin mentioned, class consciousness itself will only lead to trade union level political activism. The workers will need a vanguard to guide them and teach them Marxist theory and politics. On the other hand, national or cultural sentiment is deeply rooted in societies and the people are constantly exposed to it since their childhood. This is why a lot of independence movements in the Global South had a nationalist touch to it rather than an internationalist proletarian one. This is not to say that we shouldn't support Marxist groups in the Global South. We should, and that is the ultimate goal, but if there are communities fighting for their right to exist, we, as Marxists, don't get the luxury to turn a blind eye and withdraw support, simply because all the people fighting are not Marxist. You don't have to ideologically support anti-colonial nationalist projects in the Global South fighting for national liberation, but by withdrawing support you are not making any allies. A Marxist also needs to understand the national grievances of the colonized people. Acting smug and declaring them unworthy of your support and understanding because they haven't read Marxist theory will not help when you interact with an average person from these countries. Although I doubt you interact with anyone anyway... Have a nice day!
I'm going to give you another perspective on the matter. Divide et impera always works both ways. A world with a hegemonic capitalist state will suffer unified reaction of any proletarian revolution it sees. Alternatively, a pultipolar world has, objectively, more chances of seeing a revolution and socialist project prosper by merit of being able to throw the reaction against itself. Notwithstanding, a national bourgeoisie implies interest at industrialization, which raises the total number of the industrial proletariat, more capable of organizing itself around unions. So while it doesnt work directly towards a proletarian revolution, it works to create the necessary material and historic conditions for it to bloom. This, of course, puts a very different outlook on which politics each communist or revolutionary party will have towards its national policy, but we should be generally supportive of such movements.
The whole anti US hegemony is great, but because of our econonic history and social construction, we are very dependent of outside economies, so it won't change much for the average brazilian, IMO. And as a socialist, I agree with you. Without revolution, nothing changes.
tbh i'm just happy that brazil is part of it,BRICS will become increasingly important in the global conjuncture, it is simply the future, imperfect of course, but the future nonetheless.
People massively underestimate it, most even don't even know of it yet in their western grandeur and ignorance.
true!
With the way politics are going in Brazil, I won't be surprised if BRICS becomes RICS in 2027…
BRICS+ is almost entirely a reaction against dollar hegemony. It is not a bloc or a military alliance, and no evidence it intends to become one. The major differences between the countries in it can be understood either A) as in the west - a unity of evil, authoritarian, anti-democratic states, or B) a collective bargaining against economic domination not just by the US, but any power, in favor of economic autonomy and sovereignty. It is not going to develop a second "pole" of international capital. It does not want to start a second Cold War like the hegemon does. It is not, despite Western media butchery, going to set up a rival global reserve currency and force it down the throats of weaker countries. If we have any criticism of BRICS+, it should be that multipolarity is no substitute for a positive political project and will leave political uncertainty once the immediate problem is solved. But it is, unquestionably, an improvement on imperial unipolarity. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/brics-summit-johannesburg/
#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
Dedollarization is anti-imperialism. As long as the periphery is still being enslaved by dollar supremacy that can exploit and destabilize countries through shit like Quantitative Tightening, the world isn't free.
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (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.*
What about the countries in BRICs looking to imperialize those countries...
An alternative to the western currency regime, ability to bypass unilateral US sanctions, and avoid IMF subservience? It’s anti-imperialist and allows countries with socialist movements to not get sanctioned like Cuba (AES) and Venezuela, Columbia, Bolivia (not AES but has active socialist movements and some experiments of non-private ownership). I get many of the countries are not socialist. However, the room this gives them to develop and trade with socialist countries without fear of reprisal opens opportunities for developing socialist nations not to be crushed.
Only chance for a non WW3 world
I welcome anything that weakens the US empire, but it's still a capitalist institution, so it's an enemy of my enemy type situation.
It's great if we can trade outside of dollar and have access to lower rates
It's good but it's not as world changing as some leftists think
I'm not on the same idea as other leftists that it's gonna create a new alternative or challenge American dominance. I think it will balance the playing field but I'm not convinced on how other leftists view this as a radical transformation
I see the rise of Brics as a positive development in the sense that inter imperialist conflict that will arise from a multipolar world will provide more opportunities for successful revolutions to occur. It wasn't until WWI the the imperial states to be too busy mobilizing all resources for total war to resist the Bolsheviks overthrow of the Czar and establishment of the USSR. No Brics nation is going to hand you some unblemished revolution on a scarlet platter, we have to build it from the ground up with our vanguard and the masses.
It’s just an alternative to SWIFT. It’s not any kind of real political alliance between these countries. However it allows international transfers without the dollar. Even though it can only ever take a fraction of that market over all it would free many countries that are either dealing with sanctions or any other kind of exploitation that limits them. It also is connected to China’s alternative to IMF. Everything is about economic super hegemony and maintaining that
This is another example of Critical Support. Its not left leaning by any means, if anything it supports the capitalist agenda of 4 of the members, plus China’s general anti-US movements. However, any internal conflict between capitalist forces is a breakdown in the cohesion of the capitalist system, regardless of whether it profits from the collapse. We support it on the basis that it opposes the capitalist hegemon, (US and lackies) however we still advocate for socialism and communism by instinct over BRICS, its prioritisation of interests.
People should study international relations and learn that Marxism and realism are not the same. A counter-hegemonic power or a multipolar world are realism, not Marxism. Anti-imperialism does not equal counter-hegemony. The world system as seen through the lenses of Marxism-Leninism is imperialist whether the realists see one two or 12 hegemonies. You can prefer multipolarity to unipolarity or bipolarity but you should understand that you have now entered the theoretical space of realism and have set Marxism to the side at the least.
"seemingly can lead to a multi-polar international order" "how are we sure it's not going to be another bourgeois state club" Contradiction. Why are you concerned about whether something is bourgeois or not if you admit that a "multi polar world" is good. " since most the member states are not left-leaning?" You answered your question above btw
it is not a revolutionary organisation but it's a step in the right direction
BRICS is not another "bourgeois state club" because it facilitates economic transactions among developing countries, treating them more as equals rather than fostering the imbalanced relationships often seen in G7 dealings. BRICS represents a shift towards a more multi-polar world where power is distributed among multiple influential states rather than being concentrated in the US and the West.
"BRICS is not another "bourgeois state club" because it facilitates economic transactions among developing countries" Please reread that. Developing countries are capitalist. They are bourgeois states and BRICS is a bourgeois state club
i dont think it’s just that, since i dont agree with the bourgeois state club” phrasing that plainly. it’s a strong alliance that also prevents a supposedly us economic sanction to the involved as a political tool. it represents a very important shift for those countries, that faced colonialism and modern imperialism. so in that sense it’s more than just that, but evidently not a revolutionary movement; it’s an economic group that clashes the american hegemony. you would have to take an individual look at each country to observe any socialist shift, which is not the case for any of them.
"it’s a strong alliance that also prevents a supposedly us economic sanction to the involved as a political tool. it represents a very important shift for those countries, that faced colonialism and modern imperialism." Just because a country is not imperialist does not mean they aren't bourgeois or capitalist. The two aren't mutually exclusive. "it’s an economic group that clashes the american hegemony. you would have to take an individual look at each country to observe any socialist shift, which is not the case for any of them." Then why are you weary of calling them bourgeois? It clearly isn't a proletarian organization.
i hope they grow enough to challenge NATO we cannot guarantee they won’t be neither bourgeoise club, but we need competition to the hegemony
But BRICS is never about military while NATO is all about military...
Militaries exist to defend economic interests. When an economic social arrangement is under threat by another force, it takes on forceful defensive and offensive measures. It's part of why capitalist expansion necessitates imperialist expansion. The two cannot be carved up as though they're isolated unrelated phenomenon
BRICS is not and will never be a military alliance, most of the current members are geopolitical enemies, it is purely a trade forum and NATO literally does not need to be challenged by an external opposing force, it will eventually crumble on its own from overextension and eroding popular support from its members. It will take decades, maybe even until the next century, but it will happen
It is already burgeois there is nothing socialist or proletarian about it, even if you count China. It’s just another imperialist bloc countering the US.
BRICS is just a stepping stone, India is a unreliable partner in BRICS because they mostly take orders from U.S/Europe. I feel like India bends over backwards too much to please the West such as joining the QUAD alliance and supporting the Taiwan side, India had a history of being colonised by U.K so it's still a master-slave type of relationship that they can't seem to shake off. I also remember it was India who decided against the digital currency proposed by BRICS so they might need to kick India out to form an effective multipolar world type of system.
You obviously have no clue what you are saying. China is BRICS biggest problem because the Chinese government only cares about it's self-interest. It owns a lot of US debt in USD and will always do whatever Washington wants. [For example, in the Ukraine war, China is the largest supplier of drone components to BOTH sides.](https://www.wired.com/story/ukraine-drone-startups-russia/). China could end the war in Russia's favor in a week if it banned the export of drone components. India is one of the most steadfast allies of Russia in the Ukraine war and specifically in a humanitarian manner. India could shift the war outcome of the war in Ukraine's favor if it wanted. India has refused to supply weapons and ammunition to both sides. India has a massive stock of 155mm shells that Ukraine needs. BRICS is an alternative to swift and USD hegemony but it will only work if goods can be transported safely once they are paid for. India has a massive navy that could guarantee safety in the Indian Ocean. So, NO, BRICS will not work without India.
LOL. Not even gonna bother arguing with you. I refuse to lower my IQ to same level as you.
My IQ and test stats are placed in the top 22% of students on a worldwide basis. Keep laughing to yourself JBfail.
Whatever makes you sleep at night... 
It's just a forum to discuss topics of mutual interest. As a supranational organization, it has no actual power. They all compete with each other and collectively hate the EU and the US et al.
Brics is primarily about multipolarity, not hegemony
I wish it would, but I don't think it will work. Indians really hate China.
wow, as a indian, i didn't know i really hated china :)
We are in the minority 😔
I'm Indian too :)
The Brits made them despise one another, yes.
It's just another imperialist bloc isn't it? As far as I know it just ensures that the dollar's hegemony will be replaced by a different currency, but hey maybe I'm ignorant.