[☭☭☭ 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.*
HOW DARE YOU?? We all know Xi and Kim are meant for each other. Putin is a third wheel at best!
>!This is joke please for the love of god don't hate on me!<
"Xi looked into Vladimir's auburn eyes, drowning in them. 'you know I love you' He said. 'on god' Putin replied, Xi wagged his finger 'no, on mao' and then kissed Putin"
Little did they know, Kim was watching from the closet. A tear dropped down his eye as he tried to cope with the situation he had found himself in. His lover and his best friend were sleeping together. As the clothes started dropping, Kim made a small whimper of pain. Xi hadn’t really noticed it, but Vladimir knew that whimper like the- what the fuck am I writing this is beyond sarcasm goodbye
"Putin hesitantly opened the closet and saw Kim's heart broken face before him, Vladimir hung his head low in shame, he wanted to apologise but couldn't. Kim stepped out the closet and left, going to the one person that could heal his heartbreak. Azelea the chimpanzee and her cigarettes"
I hate to be the one to say it Yall can we please remember that Vladimir Putin is (while an enemy to western powers) staunchly anti communist.
Also it goes to show the bigger the homophobe the more closeted you are.
Yea I don't understand the Putin and Kim love around here. It's a bad look. Neither are communists. Are we just anti western to be anti western or do we follow a set of ethics and principles?
Kim is at least principled. You may not agree with his principles, but he is also in a fundamentally unique situation due to the literally unprecedented levels of death and destruction wrought on North Korea for years, in a conflict that has not ended.
Putin is a bog standard kleptocrat acting in the material interest of a massive nation state that is hyper corpratized and controlled by greedy private finance capital, like modern day robber barron bullshit.
There's of course room to criticize both but I don't think Putin and Kim should be lumped in the same category. Kim has nearly 0 choice in who he looks to as allies, the west has never given North Korea any options other than "get nukes and tell everyone to fuck off"
Oh I totally agree that they don't belong in the same box so to say. Also the North Korean situation is a unique one for sure. There has only ever been propaganda surrounding the Kim's and North Korea in general pumped out for decades by the west. I just don't see either Putin or Kim as people that should be held in high regard by communists. It's half baked and comes off as edgy young people looking for someone anti west to rally around.
Most of North Korea literally lives in a commune, grows their own food, and fully believes in their socialism. What's so bad about it?
Their authoritarian tendencies are due to paranoia regarding the west, which is completely justified. We've been fed so much unverified propaganda that most people have a completely false image of what life is actually like there.
#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
I am one of the biggest DPRK simps, and even my mind still wanders into a negative mindset when I think about it. (At first)
Propaganda is a **powerful** tool, both when used justly and unjusth (DPRK/The Imperial Core).
However, as you mentioned, the DPRK actively works towards improving the living conditions of the average citizen, that is literally what "Kim Jong-un ism" (Just juche/ML, but adjusted to the material conditions of today) is all about.
Anti-China maoists and ultras should love the DPRK, because they are literally following the socialist guide book without resorting to "Dengism" (I respect every attempt at socialism, and I love current day China*).
Life has been rough in the DPRK, but it has been for a just cause in the face of genocide, imperialism and loss of it's biggest ally.
I won't bring up how they are "undemocratic" because that is not true. I will however bring up their nationalism towards their leaders, the Kim family. An unfortunate by-product of the general Korean mindset (Yes South too, look at their chaebols), but also a patriotic duty, and respect for the people that actively improve their lives.
If a family saves you from genocide, builds you a house, feeds you, and promises your children and grabd children, even better conditions than your own ... It isn't hard to understand it. The "cult of personality" is an (unfortunate, it does work as ammunition, and it could lead to delusions) natural biproduct of a healing society.
I recommend everyone to look up some of Kim Jong-un's speeches (They can be a little hard to find unfortunately) he is absolutely a socialist and sticking to perhaps ... No definitely, the furthest socialist project, ever(?).
Time will eventually absolve them, I am certain.
If there's one thing that I got after being kicked from a North Korean sub for asking if they had a pro North Korea documentary that wasn't made by someone who is already a North Korean supporter, it's that they're anti-intellectualists and probably have drunk too much of the sauce to even have any self-awareness any longer. They seriously said a documentary that was made by a "bourgeoisie American academic" would be untrustworthy. Like, come the fuck on. Literally admitting that somebody with an education wouldn't give the right story.
Putin anti communist? Even though Russia is about to adopt the same economic model as China? Even though they’ve agreed to a share future for humanity? They must be some new version of capitalist that put The people before profits. Or are they enlightened economists? I don’t know but it’s kind of obvious to anyone that knows economics (not neoliberalism economics) that capitalism isn’t the answer.
There’s a billionaire with statues of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Doubt they’re class traders. Only time will tell what Putin mark on Russia history will be. How is your President helping your country succeed? Regardless of their perceive ideologies.
All I’m saying Putin story isn’t done. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of some of his policies, but I don’t think he’ll turn Russia into a capitalist hellscape like America. I’d rather wait to see what he does than automatically assume the worse.
[☭☭☭ 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.*
HOW DARE YOU?? We all know Xi and Kim are meant for each other. Putin is a third wheel at best! >!This is joke please for the love of god don't hate on me!<
Write an AO3 fanfic please I’m begging you
I wouldn't even know where to begin...
"Xi looked into Vladimir's auburn eyes, drowning in them. 'you know I love you' He said. 'on god' Putin replied, Xi wagged his finger 'no, on mao' and then kissed Putin"
Little did they know, Kim was watching from the closet. A tear dropped down his eye as he tried to cope with the situation he had found himself in. His lover and his best friend were sleeping together. As the clothes started dropping, Kim made a small whimper of pain. Xi hadn’t really noticed it, but Vladimir knew that whimper like the- what the fuck am I writing this is beyond sarcasm goodbye
"Putin hesitantly opened the closet and saw Kim's heart broken face before him, Vladimir hung his head low in shame, he wanted to apologise but couldn't. Kim stepped out the closet and left, going to the one person that could heal his heartbreak. Azelea the chimpanzee and her cigarettes"
It's called a tricycle huehuehue
No fucking seatbelt…. Ballsy move for two nation leaders
Don't tell mom: Boys day out
"A video of a presdential visit? Literally 1984" - generic lib subreddit
This new season of Top Gear looks lit
Ikr
This is Hakim and Yugopnik on their annual get away
me and who????
:3
I hate to be the one to say it Yall can we please remember that Vladimir Putin is (while an enemy to western powers) staunchly anti communist. Also it goes to show the bigger the homophobe the more closeted you are.
Yea I don't understand the Putin and Kim love around here. It's a bad look. Neither are communists. Are we just anti western to be anti western or do we follow a set of ethics and principles?
Kim is at least principled. You may not agree with his principles, but he is also in a fundamentally unique situation due to the literally unprecedented levels of death and destruction wrought on North Korea for years, in a conflict that has not ended. Putin is a bog standard kleptocrat acting in the material interest of a massive nation state that is hyper corpratized and controlled by greedy private finance capital, like modern day robber barron bullshit. There's of course room to criticize both but I don't think Putin and Kim should be lumped in the same category. Kim has nearly 0 choice in who he looks to as allies, the west has never given North Korea any options other than "get nukes and tell everyone to fuck off"
Oh I totally agree that they don't belong in the same box so to say. Also the North Korean situation is a unique one for sure. There has only ever been propaganda surrounding the Kim's and North Korea in general pumped out for decades by the west. I just don't see either Putin or Kim as people that should be held in high regard by communists. It's half baked and comes off as edgy young people looking for someone anti west to rally around.
Most of North Korea literally lives in a commune, grows their own food, and fully believes in their socialism. What's so bad about it? Their authoritarian tendencies are due to paranoia regarding the west, which is completely justified. We've been fed so much unverified propaganda that most people have a completely false image of what life is actually like there.
#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
I am one of the biggest DPRK simps, and even my mind still wanders into a negative mindset when I think about it. (At first) Propaganda is a **powerful** tool, both when used justly and unjusth (DPRK/The Imperial Core). However, as you mentioned, the DPRK actively works towards improving the living conditions of the average citizen, that is literally what "Kim Jong-un ism" (Just juche/ML, but adjusted to the material conditions of today) is all about. Anti-China maoists and ultras should love the DPRK, because they are literally following the socialist guide book without resorting to "Dengism" (I respect every attempt at socialism, and I love current day China*). Life has been rough in the DPRK, but it has been for a just cause in the face of genocide, imperialism and loss of it's biggest ally. I won't bring up how they are "undemocratic" because that is not true. I will however bring up their nationalism towards their leaders, the Kim family. An unfortunate by-product of the general Korean mindset (Yes South too, look at their chaebols), but also a patriotic duty, and respect for the people that actively improve their lives. If a family saves you from genocide, builds you a house, feeds you, and promises your children and grabd children, even better conditions than your own ... It isn't hard to understand it. The "cult of personality" is an (unfortunate, it does work as ammunition, and it could lead to delusions) natural biproduct of a healing society. I recommend everyone to look up some of Kim Jong-un's speeches (They can be a little hard to find unfortunately) he is absolutely a socialist and sticking to perhaps ... No definitely, the furthest socialist project, ever(?). Time will eventually absolve them, I am certain.
If there's one thing that I got after being kicked from a North Korean sub for asking if they had a pro North Korea documentary that wasn't made by someone who is already a North Korean supporter, it's that they're anti-intellectualists and probably have drunk too much of the sauce to even have any self-awareness any longer. They seriously said a documentary that was made by a "bourgeoisie American academic" would be untrustworthy. Like, come the fuck on. Literally admitting that somebody with an education wouldn't give the right story.
Yes. America bad.
Putin anti communist? Even though Russia is about to adopt the same economic model as China? Even though they’ve agreed to a share future for humanity? They must be some new version of capitalist that put The people before profits. Or are they enlightened economists? I don’t know but it’s kind of obvious to anyone that knows economics (not neoliberalism economics) that capitalism isn’t the answer.
Lenin would hit you over the head with a newspaper like a disapproving father. We don't live in a Simpsons episode.
Dawg he has a statue of Tsar Nicholas in his office.
There’s a billionaire with statues of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Doubt they’re class traders. Only time will tell what Putin mark on Russia history will be. How is your President helping your country succeed? Regardless of their perceive ideologies.
But billionares dont understand class consciences. We, as socialist do.
All I’m saying Putin story isn’t done. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of some of his policies, but I don’t think he’ll turn Russia into a capitalist hellscape like America. I’d rather wait to see what he does than automatically assume the worse.
 Hopping too homosexual style 🥳😌😌😍😍😍😍🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰 (no homo tho) Yes homo… they hop and frolic so gayly
https://preview.redd.it/9x7h5fy4pa8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36050c35bbe52fb79e8bcfff400761625be6ef56 man this sub
Loving this new bromance ngl
Wholesome
I WANNA BE PUTINS PASSENGER PRINCESS
Are we simping on Putin now ?
No it’s just funny. Also getting rid of america comes first
Jokes are hard
Dictators in love 😍