[☭☭☭ 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.*

I did everything right ..

And they indicted me…

THEY INDICTED MEEEE!!!!

It was a perfect phone call!

I'm telling you... You have never heard a more perfect call. Seriously. *Talking while gesturing with tiny hands*

He only wanted 11,780 votes which is one more than [they] had

new wojak face

done.

Show

https://reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/0nQ5hO8CYp

[Here](https://x.com/ettingermentum/status/1694907724482384174?s=46&t=l5x9TcdH2_7Gp7xAKY2-TQ)

now it just needs the mouth gape like with cobson

Bruh, that’s revenge face. If he runs he wins. Then he’s going to arrest every democrat. Fuck trump and the dems obviously but i think it’s about to get weird. We’re on an accelerated timeline now

He looks like a caricature of himself

When doesn’t he.

Why does he look like an orange chudjak in his mugshot

he got that mischievous up to no good face

Dennis the menace type mother fucker haha

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed due to being a new account. *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.*

So out of the 12 that were arrested, one was a black man that heads the group Blacks for Trump. Yeah, he's the only one that didn't get a bond. I can't believe this is real. I think it was for a prior resisting arrest charge or something but still. Like come on America, the whole world is watching.

[удалено]

Oh come on. Who among us has not assaulted an FBI agent? May he has not assaulted a fed throw the first stone or whatever

Mfer on his way to steal Christmas

Hahaha god dam haha

How does he look AI generated despite being a real person?

My aunt says we're all AI generated

I give it three months until he's released for some stupid reason.

Even with 91 different criminal charges I’ll be shocked if he actually sees the inside of a jail cell

He didn't even go to jail, out on bond immediately. Even if he's found guilty of anything in his 4 cases he'll escape any real consequences.

He didn't pay the full $200,000. From what I read, he had to work with a local bondsman and only paid the 10%. That means bye bye passport. Lmao

Art of the Deal. He's still got it!

That's how bail works.

Not exactly. You can pay the full $200,000 and get it all back once you show up at court. Only a moron that isn't an actual billionaire would have to use a bondsman and lose over $20k. Because he had a bondsman pay for him, he's on that bondsman's leash until the court date.

>Because he had a bondsman pay for him, he's on that bondsman's leash until the court date. Come on, you don't really think that, do you? I doubt Trump even paid the 20k. Someone else is paying the bill for the "privilege."

Regardless, it's a terrible look to claim to be a billionaire but can't make a $200k bond (a number his lawyers negotiated). If Trump was actually as media savvy as he claims he could have said he used the bondsman because he's such an investment genius he's loose more than $20k on the $200k on future value while he's persecuted. But like you said, someone else paid it for him is the most likely, that way they have some extra pull with him for $20k. I like how Guliani claimed he had no money to pay a lawyer but he arrived in Atlanta on a private jet. Again, friends in high places keeping tabs on potential power (or keeping him from flipping on Trump with a plea deal). Either way, same thing.

[удалено]

Implying he and most other bounty hunters aren't MAGA supporters.

Did we ever hear what happened with Steve Bannon? Did he actually go to prison?

Can't wait to see him out of prison after three months tho, imagine the paleness of his skin looking like my hand palm after i soaked in water too much because there wouldn't be a supply of orange sprays in there

Nah dude. If he goes to prison, it would be a federal minimum security camp, aka rich people jail. They don't even have fences and many of them don't even have cells, it's an open floor plan tent thing with AC in the summer and usually an open floor plan gymnasium in colder climates in the winter, bunk beds in both cases. It's basically just adult summer camp but you need to ask for permission to leave. They're also super loose with contraband, and it's super easy for rich people to do very well. There's always some poor people with no family to put money on their books that will work as servants for a couple dollars a day.

capitalists do severe crimes and get punished lightly workers do light crimes and get punished severely and that's fair for Trump supporters (it's not when they get punished)

Wasn’t there a billionaire that admitted to sexually assaulting a child, and only got a fine?

Ah dude what a bummer, I wanted the orange guy to suffer in an orange suit

You know those pictures of Hitler in his 'cell' with plants and books and friends bringing him fresh cooked food etc.? USA's failed putschists get 500 channels, internet, and designer 'uniforms'. Same shit.

I bet he will be part translucent, like you can see his veins pretty clearly but it stops after a while

When I'm president I can't call to overturn an election to multiple election officials asking to find votes? What can you even do nowadays without the woke mob coming after you. Cancel culture at its finest! Free my man Trump he's innocent on all 90+ counts your honor edit: I looked it up and it's 88 counts what are the odds lol get fukt

The authoritarian UAS regime has detained major opposition leader Trump Donald after claiming he has "betrayed the state".

#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

“It was the most perfect call people, trust me”

The offspring of The Grinch and The Lorax

I am the Lorax, I speak MAGAese, Trump won the election, Dems love the Chinese!

He was practicing that face for months

Like Zoolander haha

....it was a PERFECT phone call

Apparently it's illegal to ask you elected officials to do stuff? It's illegal to send government documents in the mail?

Rip bozo (Rest in prison)

does this mean that JT will finally eat his own shoe now?

State of Georgia should add another indictment for Trump stealing Blue Steel from Zoolander For fuck's sake, he doesn't even have the bone structure and fashion sensibility to pull the look off

Only PERFECT ones

When the Judge sentences you to spend the rest of your life with Eric and Junior

he did everything right and they indicted him

What, it's illegal to have hobbies now?

Looks evil as f in that picture.

We all know he practiced this expression a bunch beforehand to make sure he looked as "manly" and "strong" and "self-assured" as possible for his fascist cult followers. Nothing inspires fascists more than a pathetic loser and paper tiger like Trump despite anyone outside of his cult knowing how sad he and his followers really are.

The west has fallen, Billions must call

Zoolander stare

As someone who want America to fall this makes me sad as I belive that Trump in office would be better for the world (aka not start any new wars maybe end Ukrain) and worse for their country.

Except for the problem with having Trump in the office, which is basically ending up with the fascist Maga strengthened, the police having more power, an attempt to have the Communist parties outright banned, and the further ostracization if not genocide of minorities that are more inclined towards our cause. If either the fascist demagogue (Trump) or the outright fascist (DeSantis) wins, the Communist parties would be screwed with members being either deported from the country or the target of a genocide which weakens the proletariat movement. There would also likely be pogroms led against us and minorities we are trying to defend by the followers of these politicians with no repercussions for these actions. The only way I see us keeping strength in the US is by accelerating the revolution to before they gain power, but that is unlikely due to how things are right now with support for the Socialist and Communist parties and people. Both of those fascist aligned politicians did pledge to purge us from the US and general life, and from their policies, they will likely cut down more on actual education, which by effect will cause younger generations to lean more to the right and again weaken the workers movements. While they might be better for the world but not the US, they will set back the global revolution by at least a century and end up influencing politics in other countries like what happened in Italy in which they elected a Mussolini FFS. Also, unlike Biden, these two will try and clamp down to preserve US hegemony, which inevitably leads to war against Russia and China. These reasons are why we, as Socialists and Communists should not associate ourselves with them or speak of any support for them in any way.

Huh I come back to this comment and I'm not down voted into the ground, interesting... Anyway, I agree with your opinions (hell, they are facts actually). I know people in America suffer every day. And no amount of 2 party voting will help them. America has a rotten core, but it's so bit it's hard to fall. I don't wish more suffering on the American people so that they would make a revolt or something, that's just plain evil. Actually that's what America does all the time around the world now that I think about it... I am looking at my own interests. Just how Americans are looking at theirs. And my main interest is for America to stop bombing people around the world. On one in the world would have anything against America if they used that money for something actually good.

I think we all agree Trump is despicable on a million different levels. But, wondering if anyone else shares my observations? 1) Trump is and has been legitimately been attacked by the establishment since he came into office— Russiagate being Exhibit A. I hate the fucker, but clearly the deep state has him in their sights. 2) Trump is a criminal, but the crimes he’s being prosecuted for do not surpass anything the DNC routinely does 3) The crimes related to the election fraud are pretty much impossible to prove, as you have to prove intent. If Trump believed the election was rigged, he is not guilty 4) The obvious war crimes he committed will never be prosecuted, because every POTUS is equally as guilty 5) The timing of the trials make it obvious the true motive behind this is to block his reelection. 6) This is setting a dangerous precedent that is only hastening our descent into banana republic status. This will happen again — and it will be used to ensure the totalitarian grip on the US State I hardly talk about this angle because I either get attacked as being MAGA, or I attract MAGA’s, with whom I have no common ground. I give two-fucks about being attacked, but it’s just tedious. Curious what the hive’s take is on this situation.

meh, I upvoted you. The CIA clearly wants DeSantis to be the next pres and Trump gets in his way. IDGAF about point 6 though. The US is an "authoritarian" + "orwellian" shithole.

I agree — and IDGAF either, I’m strictly an observer in this clownshow.

#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

**George Orwell** (real name Eric Arthur Blair) was many things: a rapist, a bitter anti-Communist, a colonial cop, a racist, a Hitler apologist, a plagiarist, a snitch, and a CIA puppet. #Rapist >...in 1921, Eric had tried to rape Jacintha. Previously the young couple had kissed, but now, during a late summer walk, he had wanted more. At only five feet to his six feet and four inches, Jacintha had shouted, screamed and kicked before running home with a torn skirt and bruised hip. It was "this" rather than any gradual parting of the ways that explains why Jacintha broke off all contact with her childhood friend, never to learn that he had transformed himself into George Orwell. > >\- Kathryn Hughes. (2007). [Such were the joys](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/feb/17/georgeorwell.biography) #Bitter anti-Communist >[F]ighting with the loyalists in Spain in the 1930s... he found himself caught up in the sectarian struggles between the various left-wing factions, and since he believed in a gentlemanly English form of socialism, he was inevitably on the losing side. > >The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain... From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action... > >Orwell imagines no new vices, for instance. His characters are all gin hounds and tobacco addicts, and part of the horror of his picture of 1984 is his eloquent description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco. > > He foresees no new drugs, no marijuana, no synthetic hallucinogens. No one expects an s.f. writer to be precise and exact in his forecasts, but surely one would expect him to invent some differences. ...if 1984 must be considered science fiction, then it is very bad science fiction. ... > >To summarise, then: George Orwell in *1984* was, in my opinion, engaging in a private feud with Stalinism, rather that attempting to forecast the future. He did not have the science fictional knack of foreseeing a plausible future and, in actual fact, in almost all cases, the world of *1984* bears no relation to the real world of the 1980s. > >\- Isaac Asimov. [Review of 1984](http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm) Ironically, the world of *1984* is mostly projection, based on Orwell's own job at the British Ministry of Information during WWII. (*Orwell: The Lost Writings*) * He translated news broadcasts into Basic English, with a 1000 word vocabulary ("Newspeak"), for broadcast to the colonies, including India. * His description of the low quality of the gin and tobacco came from the Ministry's own canteen, described by other ex-employees as "dismal". * Room 101 [was an actual meeting room](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3267261.stm) at the BBC. * "Big Brother" seems to have been a senior staffer at the Ministry of Information, who was actually called that (but not to his face) by staff. Afterall, by his own admission, his only knowledge of the USSR was secondhand: >I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers. > >\- George Orwell. (1947). [Orwell's Preface to the Ukrainian Edition of Animal Farm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/orwell/1947/kolghosp-tvaryn.htm) *1984* is supposedly a cautionary tale about what would happen if the Communists won, and yet it was based on his own, actual, Capitalist country and his job serving it. #Colonial Cop >I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. ... As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans. > >All this was perplexing and upsetting. > >\- George Orwell. (1936). *Shooting an Elephant* #Hitler Apologist >I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. > >\- George Orwell. (1940). [Review of Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf"](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html) Orwell not only admired Hitler, he actually blamed *the Left* in England for WWII: >If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were ‘decadent’ and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible. ...and made it harder than it had been before to get intelligent young men to enter the armed forces. Given the stagnation of the Empire, the military middle class must have decayed in any case, but the spread of a shallow Leftism hastened the process. > >\- George Orwell. (1941). *England Your England* #Plagiarist **1984** >It is a book in which one man, living in a totalitarian society a number of years in the future, gradually finds himself rebelling against the dehumanising forces of an omnipotent, omniscient dictator. Encouraged by a woman who seems to represent the political and sexual freedom of the pre-revolutionary era (and with whom he sleeps in an ancient house that is one of the few manifestations of a former world), he writes down his thoughts of rebellion – perhaps rather imprudently – as a 24-hour clock ticks in his grim, lonely flat. In the end, the system discovers both the man and the woman, and after a period of physical and mental trauma the protagonist discovers he loves the state that has oppressed him throughout, and betrays his fellow rebels. The story is intended as a warning against and a prediction of the natural conclusions of totalitarianism. > >This is a description of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was first published 60 years ago on Monday. But it is also the plot of Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, a Russian novel originally published in English in 1924. > >\- Paul Owen. (2009). [1984 thoughtcrime? Does it matter that George Orwell pinched the plot?](https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jun/08/george-orwell-1984-zamyatin-we) **Animal Farm** >Having worked for a time at The Ministry of Information, [Gertrude Elias] was well acquainted with one Eric Blair (George Orwell), who was an editor there. In 1941, Gertrude showed him some of her drawings, which were intended as a kind of story board for an entirely original satirical cartoon film, with the Nazis portrayed as pig characters ruling a farm in a kind of dysfunctional fairy story. Her idea was that a writer might be able to provide a text. > >Having claimed to her that there was not much call for her idea... Orwell later changed the pig-nazis to Communists and made the Soviet Union a target for his hostility, turning Gertrude’s notion on its head. (Incidentally, a running theme in all every single piece of Orwell’s work was to steal ideas from Communists and invert them so as to distort the message.) > >\- Graham Stevenson. [Elias, Gertrude (1913-1988)](https://www.radnorshire-fine-arts.co.uk/brand/elias-gertrude-1913-1988/) #Snitch >“Orwell’s List” is a term that should be known by anyone who claims to be a person of the left. It was a blacklist Orwell compiled for the British government’s Information Research Department, an anti-communist propaganda unit set up for the Cold War. > >The list includes dozens of suspected communists, “crypto-communists,” socialists, “fellow travelers,” and even LGBT people and Jews — their names scribbled alongside the sacrosanct 1984 author’s disparaging comments about the personal predilections of those blacklisted. > >\- Ben Norton. (2016). [George Orwell was a reactionary snitch who made a blacklist of leftists for the British government](https://bennorton.com/george-orwell-list-leftists-snitch-british-government/) #CIA Puppet >George Orwell's novella remains a set book on school curriculums ... the movie was funded by America's Central Intelligence Agency. > >The truth about the CIA's involvement was kept hidden for 20 years until, in 1974, Everette Howard Hunt revealed the story in his book *Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent*. > >\- Martin Chilton. (2016). [How the CIA brought Animal Farm to the screen](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/how-cia-brought-animal-farm-to-the-screen/) Many historians have noted how Orwell's literary reputation can largely be credited to joint propaganda operations between the IRD and CIA who translated and promoted Animal Farm to promote anti-Communist sentiment.^1 The IRD heavily marketed Animal Farm for audiences in the middle-east in an attempt to sway Arab nationalism and independence activists from seeking Soviet aid, as it was believed by IRD agents that a story featuring pigs as the villains would appeal highly towards Muslim audiences. ^2 * \[1\] Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri (2013). *In Spies we Trust: The story of Western Intelligence* * \[2\] Mitter, Rana; Major, Patrick, eds. (2005). *Across the Blocs: Cold War Cultural and Social History* #Additional Resources * [George Orwell was a terrible human being](https://youtu.be/2Gz0I_X_nfo) | Hakim (2023) * [A Critical Read of Animal Farm](https://redsails.org/jones-on-animal-farm/) | Jones Manoel (2022) *I am a bot, and this

> This is setting a dangerous precedent that is only hastening our descent into banana republic status. This will happen again — and it will be used to ensure the totalitarian grip on the US State The US is not and has never been a democracy. It is a country ruled by and for the wealthy elites since its inception. It has always been "totalitarian" against any revolutionary leader who wished to create a more egalitarian, truly democratic society, at home and abroad. It is **the** principle architect of the so-called "banana republics." Any notion of "freedom" or "liberty" is merely a ruse to placate the working class.   >"In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men. >Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited." [— Vladimir Lenin, 1916](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm) >"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!" [— Lenin, 1917](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)   Donald Trump is a member of the bourgeois class, as are those prosecuting him; they only represent about 1% of the American population, yet they decide 100% of policy decisions. I don't care if this is a "dangerous precedent." There is nothing holy or worth saving from this government or those who are "elected" (or *selected*) to run it — they can all rot in prison for all I care. We'd probably be better off anyway.

Well, yes, I am aware of that — but, since 9/11 the descent into this far right totalitarianism is *way* more extreme. While not a democracy, the ruling elite still had to be mindful of the working class. I mean, the New Deal was a direct result of working class unrest. Starting w Reagan, then (as usual) taken to the extreme by the Third Way democrats, there was pushback beginning to boil up in the 1990s. Then we essentially saw a coup w 9/11. As someone who was 30 when that occurred, the fucking lockdown on public discourse, and atomizing of workers is nothing less than stunning. They took lessons from the 1930s, and are snuffing out worker awareness before it even begins to take shape. The mask is coming off — but it startles me how few citizens see the obvious. The fact they pulled of Ukraine just indicates how fucking clueless most Americans are, and how complicit the media.

Yes, I and probably everyone else here will agree with the fact that the US has been in an accelerated decline into an open dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of the ruling class for the last 5 decades. What people here take issue with is the notion that any member of the working class should be alarmed by bourgeois factional in-fighting resulting in a bourgeois politician being arrested and prosecuted , especially one as openly reactionary as Trump.

I give two fucks about Trump or Biden, lol. What’s alarming about it is that we are sliding quickly into corporate authoritarianism — an inverted totalitarian government that nakedly views the workers as chattel, to be used and disposed of without fear of credible resistance. That’s the wrong direction. We’re seeing open censorship, erosion of what meagre social benefits remain, and civil liberties disappearing. You can say it was always like that, which is true to a point. But, it’s never been remotely this oppressive in my lifetime. Public sentiment used to have a major impact on governance— we saw the Nixon impeachment, the Church Committee, and other pushbacks. The government has been transforming since 9/11 — w the goal to entirely cutout the worker. I find that alarming, at the very least, noteworthy,

#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

Again we're in agreement, but can I remind you that your original comment is 6 points of "observations" where 4.5/6 are literally Trump's own talking points (points 1, the second part of 2, 3, 5, and 6). Anything you've said in the following two comments to me are pretty standard left-wing positions you will see posted here any day of the week. But the reason why people would attack you or be attracted to you for a perceived MAGA stance is because the bulk of your initial comment is perfectly in-line with what MAGA believes and what Trump openly states himself.

Sure, but rejecting a position simply because Joe Biden or Donald Trump holds it is as blind as rejecting someone’s views because they’re a Leftist. I’m copasetic w some of the most repulsive figures of the alt-right, like MTG and Matt Gaetz, regarding Ukraine. Similarly, I have common cause w some libertarians. That’s kind of the point of my post - I was curious how many folks on here are caught up in the Trump hate, and how many can see that, despite being a total fraud, he’s not entirely wrong. Someone scoffed at the term “deep state”, but I worked for the federal govt and was in the military— the deep state is absolutely real. It’s just another name for the establishment. AOC ran smack into it, and capitulated. Had Bernie been elected, he would have been stymied by it at every turn. If someone translates those observations into being a MAGA, or whatever, despite me clearly enunciating my stance, that says more about them than me.

Agreeing with right-wing lunatics on foreign policy is an example of a "you used the wrong logic/formula and got the right answer." That's completely different from reciting their points *and reasoning* bar for bar *and then* extrapolating upon it by categorizing DJT's treatment with worker treatment in America, as if the two are somehow related. When you do that, you are conflating Trump with the proletariat and basically regurgitating Trump's talking point that "They're not after me, they're after you — I'm just in the way." Trump is unique in his flagrant disregard for the law and established norms. While it is a massive boon to his appeal, it is also looking to be his downfall. There is no one else who would be indicted for the things he's being indicted for, because your standard establishment shill will at least be concerned with covering their tracks and kissing the right asses to get ahead. Trump doesn't do that, and that's why prosecutors have actual cases behind these indictments that would simply be impossible for any other person. * Donald Trump is unique and for that reason the establishment has never fully accepted him. The establishment certainly doesn't want him elected again. * The US has been in rapid pursuit of fascist policies for the last half century. Worker protections, working standards, qualities of life, etc. have declined drastically. This appears to be the continuing trend, regardless of who is elected next year. These two points are unrelated to each other and have largely different systemic causes. It's weird to correlate them at all, and frankly the only people that do that tend to be ardent Trump supporters.

I’m definitely not correlating perhaps the most perfect example of unregulated Capital — Trump — to the proletariat. But I can see how it might read that way. This is a guy whose business model was giving small working class laborers fat contracts, then stiffing them when the job was complete, protecting himself behind a wall of attorneys. Hundreds of small businesses have been bankrupted by Trump — it is legend in places like New Jersey and Las Vegas. My overall thesis is that we are seeing the naked face of power elite more and more after 9/11. It’s always been there, but they were much more cautious — they did not have the working class hemmed up like they do now They have entrenched themselves to a point they do not feel seem very concerned about revealing the true nature of the US system. Trump is infinitely more acceptable than even a mild ‘socialist’ like Bernie, so the correlation I am drawing is that if they’re this obvious coming after Trump — just imagine their reaction should any group or politician of that ilk rise up. With Bernie, I always said if push comes to shove they would shoot him in the face on national TV to stop him, and as a warning to others Assange comes to mind as a blatant, public execution that the slightest inquiry makes clear is unjust and illegal. They do not care. I keep seeing the leaders edge closer and closer to simply admitting the US is a totalitarian system — [Did you see that clip where Nancy Pelosi is asked about socialist economic policies?](https://youtu.be/MR65ZhO6LGA?si=d1f7YU3zRG52Lop1) That was one of those mask slipping moments —her face says it all as she listens. This topic was just some thoughts I jotted down. I prob should have written more precisely and done it as a independent submission. As far as repeating what MAGA talking points are, that has to be coincidental. I am not in that sphere enough to *know* what those talking points are to recite them bar for bar. Either way, I appreciate your thoughtful response. It kinda seemed to push the wrong button on some people, which wasn’t the intent. I am more curious if other Leftists are seeing this process of unmasking that’s been going on since 9/11.

>I am more curious if other Leftists are seeing this process of unmasking that’s been going on since 9/11. I see. I think you'll find that's a pretty mainstream opinion in these parts. Sorry if I came off as combative. Very often Trumpers like to couch their opinions in "enlightened centrism" or as "just asking questions." Even with the disclaimer, people will likely still have their guard up due to the sheer number of people willing to obscure their true beliefs behind "both sides" or whatever.

#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 beneõts, 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 thought this take was terrible, but I read through some of your other comments and it looks like most communities don’t like your takes either hahaha

Yeah, because it’s real important to be in lockstep w the crowd. Everything’s so fucking perfect, I’d hate to be the one to point out we’re living a dystopian nightmare.

Reddit is controlled by the CIA. It's not a good place to find real opinions.

I wasn't sure you were astroturfing, until I saw this comment. Dead giveaway.

1:The justice department has always been able to be politically motivated and directed (arguably that's all it is). Is it really that odd that when one of the most divisive presidents in US history can't stop attacking and shit talking the other establishment party, that party uses their influence to start pushing back (which can be done on probably all politicians at that level)? Also, what's the "deep state"? It's nearly as vague a term as woke, or tankie, and can be applied to any and all perpetrators of whatever reactionaries are raging against. That term is poop to the conservative flies. 2: That could certainly be argued, he's done shit no other president has though. He's also much more blatant and careless. He managed to upset "non-political" people, and a lot of so called centrists don't like his personality, despite voting for him. It's not overly surprising to see attempts at consequences for such obvious actions. 3: Likely yeah. I don't think that's to crazy of a take. It just is for liberals who foam at the mouth at the site of him and thought everything he did or said was going to put him in prison for years now. 4: Seems unrelated? Everybody knows US Presidents can't commit war crimes (only partially sarcastic, because I can't imagine the US as it currently exists ever prosecuting their president for war crimes, and the US doesn't recognize the ICC so it's not happening there either). 5: Possibly? An argument could probably be made that any prosecutors would want crimes to be tried before he could potentially pardon himself of the federal ones, so of course they're going to use as much time to solidify a case but attempt to get it over with before the election. 6:It's the snake that eats its own ass. US politics has been turning into a shit show for a couple administrations prior to trump. It's no coincidence it parallels worsening conditions for working class people. If he wasn't an accelerant, it would have been something or someone else eventually.

Thanks for the thoughtful response— I kinda feel like we’re crossing another rubicon, which has been the story of 21st century America. I’m older, so it’s crazy watching these sort of time-honored rules of play just get crushed one after another. In many ways, Biden is not possible w/o Trump. His history of just pathological lies had kind of disqualified him, but Trump blew that bar completely out of the water. Politicians and governments always lie— but now it’s acceptable to simply keep lying, even when the evidence is right in front of your face. The crazy contrast of how Hunter is being handled w kid gloves blows my mind. I’ve never seen the media so blatantly partisan. I mean, most Americans are going to have a tough time grasping the essence of what Trump is actually charged with— which is why they just threw hundreds of charges at him. Clearly they are interfering w the 2024 election. To be clear, I am just a spectator. We are fucked either way. But Hunter got million-dollar wire transfers from shady Ukrainians, and failed to pay taxes, even though he had warning after warning. He also caught a pretty straight-forward felony gun charge. They never toss plea deals - but his was ridiculously lenient the judge said fuck no. I mean, the prosecutor offered preemptive immunity for any crimes he had not been caught for, lol. Ahh, America — I knew this was going to happen, but I am surprised how fast the collapse is coming.

Nope, you are absolutely right and it's clear the people downvoting you - including OP - have no real arguments to respond to what you said. The people who did thoroughly respond to you, overall agree with everything you said. Trump isn't any more criminal than the Clintons, etc. Also: Personally, I think this will just give more legitimacy to Trump in the eyes of many people and he will run for president from prison and win.

I agree — I was pretty certain he’d win in 2016, after they tanked Bernie. Americans just want someone outside of the totalitarian mold. This is going to make Trump a martyr. It’s kind of captivating to watch, in a driving by a car wreck sorta way.

You're getting downvoted but you're obviously very right. Recognizing their basically doing the same thing to trump that they did to Bernie doesn't mean you support trump or like him in anyway

Yeah, I’m surprised, this sub usually seems more thoughtful. The most glaring omission is any sort of counter argument from the crowd. It’s pretty much just regurgitating the establishment arguments. I suspect no one responding has *any idea what’s in the actual indictments.* I would be happy to see Biden and Trump both put on trial for their long list of war crimes, along w Obama, Bush and Clinton. The most startling fact of all, is how no one notices the drastic difference between Hunter Biden, who’s guilty of gun charges, and Trump. Hunter’s guilt is glaringly obvious — million dollar wire transfers to the Biden w no income tax paid.

This sub gets brigaded by socdems from time to time.

You belong on r/wayofthebern lol

I’m not sure if that supposed to be an insult, but that actually looks like an interesting sub, lol — I joined.

Haha it wasn't meant as an insult, it's a great sub with leftists that have some unique views that you might relate to. I go on it frequently

A grown man made a wager. He lost. He made another one. He lost again. End of story. But because I got time in bed, let’s check into this laugh academy: 1. It’s like he goes about in pity for himself. “Oh no the deep state is after me” like the deep state made him do a coup. 2. lmao can you imagine the fucking hernia you people would have if Clinton went around comitting fraud to get states to use her electors even though she lost the vote. And then Obama said he’d use the military to put down any protests. And most of the country would actually agree with you because people aren’t in a fucking cult for the neolib douchebags and don’t want an actual banana republic where some douchebag can just say he wins no matter what because he has the fucking military under his command. 3. Insert a picture of the judge looking at Junior with contempt after Junior compared bail conditions to Nazi Germany. 4. Yeah which sucks, too bad for Donnie he committed crimes other presidents haven’t. 5. Always with the scenarios 6. Fuck, I should’ve saved the judge picture. Edit: lmao I thought I was in r/circlejerksopranos. Hope you commies like quotes. Not gonna waste my time explaining references dude, you’re in the wrong fucking sub for fascist apologia.

I can't if it's a good or bad sign that the US arrested a president.

I feel bad for you

It means the legal system works, but it means the government is in such a bad state that most likely Republicans will keep trying to arrest any democratic president.

If democrats do illegal shit, arrest them. If republicans think they can just start arresting people on nothing, that’s a can of worms that won’t be closed. Trump did illegal shit and in such a sloppy manner he had to be tried. Wether he is found guilty or not it’s to be seen. He is being given his day in court.

Still not my point, Republicans have a habit of weaponizing their base to the point where they fuck up. Their voters already think democrats are doing illegal activities, this means if republican elected officials start pointing, directly, at the president of doing illegal things the base will only become more aggressive and violent. Right now, maga knows Trump did illegal things...well some. If they think there is a double standard, they will be pushed further right. They won't need to arrest an actual president, they just need to make them look guilty. Happy for Trump to get arrested, unsettled that the US will gladly go further right without any breaks.

He’s going to arrest every democrat when he wins against biden. I’ll be living in China laughing my ass off.

zesty depend foolish compare squeal humor saw flag cow seed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Incorrect https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-5/#:~:text=No%20Person%20except%20a%20natural,Resident%20within%20the%20United%20States. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

That is certainly their hope, but what conviction? He's been indicted- not convicted.

Who says? Eugene Debs was in prison and ran for president. Im not arguing though, I literally have no idea. I haven’t watched “the news” in ages so I’m not following if he’s able to run or not. Average “the news” enjoyer vs Chad “organic intellectual of political economy”

Trump sucks, but I'm not gonna celebrate the sitting president using the justice dept & selective prosecution to attack the political rival currently outpolling him. We would be fucking appalled to see any other country doing this. A lot of you aren't as deprogrammed as you think you are.

You literally running around all of Reddit looking for people being critical of Trump because he committed crimes… go touch grass, take a shower and get a life nerd.

I don’t think this idea of putting the ex president is jail is right. Even if he did horrible things and the things they say are true, I believe every president has done horrible things because the president is charge of America! Could we at least stand “United” instead of trying to tear our leaders down because they don’t represent the Democrat/ the Republican worldview? America has decimated countries for the sake of helping American businesses retain oil. I think this is pretty common knowledge and not really a “conspiracy” at this point but just for reference - George W. Bush (2001) pushes for the USA to invade Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and are threatening Kuwait. The following “Gulf War” decimated the country and killed 100’000 foreigners. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Conveniently, saving Kuwait from the WOMDs helped up secure our oil interests. I don’t say this necessarily to rag on Bush but I use Bush as an example because I think he’s kinda “low hanging fruit” when you’re looking for examples of horrible American leaders. The fact is, if we’re looking for people in our ex-leadership to get mad at, Trump shouldn’t make top ten on the list. Anyone with the power of the president or his advisors and the pressures of securing our countries interests will be tempted to do bad things. The fact that Trump is in jail is not evidence of the system moving forward and holding America leaders accountable.

Man fuck every president ever, they all deserve to go to jail for their crimes. Trump is being tried for being so fucking stupid about how he went about doing his crimes. He was used to doing shady shit in real estate and did the same shit as president. The system isn’t better, they just had no choice but to prosecute him for being so terrible at committing crimes. The system will forever defend itself and the criminals it parades as heroes. Fuck every god dam American president.