cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/712631

> JT will be answering questions below, due to a scheduled appointment that couldn't be changed he will be starting a little late, answers will begin roughly 1 hour after the post starts. > > Like usual there are no strict time limits set for this so JT will come and go as and when his time allows, if he doesn't get to your questions be patient! This post will be edited here when things end. > > JT's posting account for AMAs is: @Secondthought_JT . > > Be sure to check out The Deprogram if you haven't already! Available wherever you listen to podcasts. > > *** > > The Deprogram | Second Thought | First Thought > > The Deprogram on Twitter | JT on Twitter > > The Deprogram subreddit

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Information Research Department (IRD)

The Wikipedia article for this organization is damning enough:

> The IRD was a secret Cold War propaganda department of the British Foreign Office, created to publish anti-communist propaganda, including black propaganda, provide support and information to anti-communist politicians, academics, and writers, and to use weaponised information, but also disinformation and "fake news" to attack not only its original targets but also certain socialists and anti-colonial movements. Soon after its creation, the IRD broke away from focusing solely on Soviet matters and began to publish pro-colonial propaganda intended to suppress pro-independence revolutions in Asia, Africa, Ireland, and the Middle East. The IRD was heavily involved in the publishing of books, newspapers, leaflets, journals, and even created publishing houses to act as propaganda fronts, such as Ampersand Limited. Operating for 29 years, the IRD is known as the longest-running covert government propaganda department in British history, the largest branch of the Foreign Office, and the first major anglophone propaganda offensive against the USSR since the end of World War II. By the 1970s, the IRD was performing military intelligence tasks for the British Military in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. > > The IRD was the government department to which George Orwell submitted his list of suspected Communists (Orwell's list), including many prominent people such as Charlie Chaplin, Paul Robeson, and Michael Redgrave. With the help of Orwell's widow Sonia Orwell and his former publisher Fredric Warburg, the IRD gained the foreign rights to much of Orwell's work and spent years distributing Animal Farm onto every continent, translating Orwell's works into 20 different languages, funding the creation of an animated feature film based on Animal Farm, and working with the CIA to create the feature-length Animal Farm animated movie, the first of its kind in British history. Many historians have noted how Orwell's literary reputation can largely be credited to joint propaganda operations between the IRD and CIA. 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. The IRD funded the activities of many authors including Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Conquest. > > Internationally, IRD agents took part in many historic events, including Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the Malayan Emergency, The Troubles, the Mau Mau Uprising, Cyprus Emergency, and the Sino-Indian War. Other IRD activities included forging letters and posters, conducting smear attacks against British trade unionists, and attacking opponents of the British military by planting fake news stories in the British press. Some of these fabricated stories the IRD created included accusations that Irish republicans were killing dogs by setting them on fire, and falsely accusing EOKA members of raping schoolgirls. > > Although the existence of the IRD was successfully kept hidden from the British public until the 1970s, the Soviet Union had always been aware of its existence, for Guy Burgess had been posted to IRD for a period of two months in 1948. Burgess was later sacked by the IRD's founder Christopher Mayhew, who accused him of being "dirty, drunk and idle". The IRD closed its operations in 1977 after its existence was discovered by British journalists after an investigation into a heavy amount of anti-Soviet propaganda being published by academics belonging to St Antony's College, Oxford. An exposé published in The Guardian titled by David Leigh "Death of the Department that Never Was", became the first public acknowledgement of the IRD's existence. > > — Wikipedia. Information Research Department

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

The CFR is a powerful and influential organization, sometimes called "Wall Street's Think Tank", which represents the interests of the capitalist ruling class in the United States and plays a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy in favour of corporate and imperialistic interests, while downplaying the needs of the working class and other marginalized groups. Founded in 1921, the CFR is a private non-profit headquartered in New York City. Its funding comes from membership dues, corporate sponsorships, foundation grants, and individual donations.

Membership is by invitation only (typically proposed by current CFR members), prospective members must undergo a rigorous nomination and vetting process based on their expertise, experience, and potential contributions to the CFR's mission.

• Imperialist: The recommendations made by the CFR often reflect imperialistic goals aimed at maintaining and expanding U.S. global dominance. It advocates for military interventions, economic sanctions, and other measures that serve the interests of multinational corporations and the capitalist ruling class, even at the expense of other nations and peoples.
• Influential: Government officials, policymakers, and media outlets have very close ties to the CFR. The organization's concerning influence on foreign policy decisions leads to policies that prioritize capitalist interests over broader social and humanitarian concerns.
• Undemocratic: There is a lack of transparency and democratic accountability in the CFR's operations. The organization is not subject to public scrutiny or electoral processes, allowing its members to exert considerable influence on U.S. foreign policy behind closed doors.
• Neoliberal: The CFR's policy recommendations tend to align with neoliberal economic principles, advocating for free trade, deregulation, and privatization. This approach is seen as promoting corporate interests at the expense of workers' rights, social welfare, and economic equality.

In the Whitehouse

Biden's current administration is comprised of a (perhaps) shocking number of CFR members:

> The CFR is funded and led by members of the old plutocracy. For example, David Rockefeller was the CFR’s chair for fifteen years and has been its leading financial donor historically. No less than seventeen Biden team members (out of thirty total, or 56.7 percent) are members of, have close family ties to, or are otherwise connected to the CFR (see box on page 3). These include: vice president Kamala Harris; secretary of state Antony Blinken; secretary of the treasury Janet Yellen; secretary of defense Lloyd Austin; CIA head William J. Burns; national security advisor Jake Sullivan; secretary of agriculture Thomas Vilsack; secretary of commerce Gina Raimondo; secretary of homeland security Alejandro Mayorkas; chief of staff Ron Klain; climate envoy John Kerry; domestic council chief Susan Rice; Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt M. Campbell; ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield; chief of Council of Economic Advisers Cecilia Rouse; director of science and technology Eric S. Lander; and counselor Jeffery Zients. All have at least a minimum level of commitment to the CFR, in the sense of having the necessary connections, making the effort needed to become a member, and paying expensive annual dues. Several of this group are especially close to the Council. For example, Blinken is not only a CFR member, but his wife, father, and uncle are also members. Since 2004, Blinken has also often donated to the Council’s annual fund drive. Kerry, a Boston Brahman member of the old money plutocracy whose family wealth exceeds a billion dollars, has at least four other family members in the CFR. Rouse has been a director of the Council since 2018. Vilsack was the cochair of a CFR independent task force study group in 2007. Many have spoken at CFR meetings, such as Mayorkas in June 2011. > > Vice President Harris and Chief of Staff Klain are the only ones of the seventeen listed in the box on page 3 who are not members but are tied to the CFR by family. Harris’s sister Maya, who was her campaign manager, has been a Council member since 2013. Klain’s wife, Monica Media, was elected to CFR membership in 2016.3 > > Although not currently a CFR member, National Security Advisor Sullivan also has close ties to the Council. In recent years, he has written no less than five articles for the CFR’s in-house journal Foreign Affairs, and spoken at the CFR’s New York headquarters. > > Finally, Biden himself was allowed to write an article for Foreign Affairs during the presidential campaign. Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren were the only presidential candidates invited to advertise themselves and their ideas in Foreign Affairs during the 2019–20 election period. > > — Lawrence Shoup. (2021). The Council on Foreign Relations, the Biden Team, and Key Policy Outcomes

Additional Resources

• The American Empire and its Media | Swiss Policy Research (2017)
• Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2019 | Lawrence Shoup (2019)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

The USAGM is a federal agency of the United States government responsible for overseeing and funding U.S. government-supported media organizations that provide news, information, and cultural programming to audiences around the world. It was formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) until 2018 when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 restructured and rebranded it as the USAGM.

Despite many of these organization's claims to the contrary, it should be obvious that none of them are unbiased and all of them have an agenda.

> “Freedom of the press” in bourgeois society means freedom for the rich systematically, unremittingly, daily, in millions of copies, to deceive, corrupt and fool the exploited and oppressed mass of the people, the poor. > > — V. I. Lenin. (1917). How to Guarantee the Success of the Constituent Assembly

USAGM oversees several media organizations, including:

Radio Free Europe

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) was initially established during the Cold War to broadcast to audiences in countries under Soviet influence. It was funded by the United States government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until 1971 when it was reorganized as a private, non-profit corporation, the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Incorporated.

Radio Free Asia

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a sister organization to RFE/RL, both sharing similar missions. RFA was established in 1996 with funding from the U.S. government, specifically through the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), which is now part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). Similar to RFE/RL, RFA has also received grants from the NED to support some of its activities.

Middle East Broadcasting Networks

Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) was established in 2004 and targets Arabic-speaking audiences in the Middle East. From MBN's USAGM profile:

> MBN is an Arabic-language news organization with a weekly audience of 27.4 million people in 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa. ... > > Alhurra and Alhurra-Iraq are 24/7 Arabic-language television networks that provide news and analysis to more than 15.7 million viewers each week. Its in-depth discussion programs provide points of view from throughout the region and the U.S.

Office of Cuba Broadcasting

Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), headquartered in Miami, operates Radio and Television Martí, providing news and information to audiences in Cuba. From OCB's USAGM profile:

> The Martís are a multimedia hub of news, information and analysis that provide the people of Cuba with interactive programs seven days a week through satellite television and shortwave and AM radio, as well as through emails, DVDs, and SMS text. Combined with the online platform, radiotelevisionmarti.com, the Martís are a one-of-a-kind service that brings unbiased, objective information to all Cubans.

Voice of America

Voice of America (VOA) provides news and information in more than 40 languages, reaching a global audience. From VOA's USAGM profile:

> Voice of America provides trusted and objective news and information in 48 languages to a measured weekly audience of more than 326 million people around the world. For more than 80 years, VOA journalists have told American stories and supplied content that many people cannot get locally: objective news and information about the US, their specific region and the world. VOA uses the devices and platforms target markets use to connect audiences on five continents with the people, thoughts and institutions that make America unique. > > VOA uses digital, web and mobile media to engage viewers, listeners, users, and friends. Radio and television broadcast to approximately 3,500 affiliates and satellite transmissions reach countries where free speech is banned or where civil society is under threat.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

The NED is an organization based in the United States that was established in 1983 and is funded through an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress. Its creation was authorized by the National Endowment for Democracy Act, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The NED's primary purpose is to promote and spread the United State's values and version of democracy around the world and advancing its foreign policy objectives.

The NED operates by providing grants to a wide range of organizations, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civic groups, labor unions, media outlets, political parties, etc. These organizations, in turn, implement programs that align with U.S. foreign policy interests, often under the guise of protecting human rights, promoting free and fair elections, etc.

> In a nutshell, the idea of what was to become NED arose as a response to revelations about covert CIA efforts to promote democracy, and was debated periodically in Congress between 1967 and 1983. NED was funded initially entirely by Congress, chaired initially by the chairman of the relevant congressional committee, and formally incorporated on the day a congressional conference committee finally decided to authorize spending for it. > > ...NED acknowledges its ongoing relationship with lawmakers, saying that its "continued funding is dependent on the continued support of the White House and Congress." Those who spearheaded creation of NED have long acknowledged it was part of an effort to move from covert to overt efforts to foster democracy. President Reagan said in 1983 that "this program will not be hidden in the shadows. It will stand proudly in the spotlight, and that's where it belongs." Allen Weinstein, a former acting president of NED and one of the authors of the study that led to its creation, told David Ignatius in a 1991 interview that: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection." > > — ProPublica. (2010). The National Endowment for Democracy Responds to Our Burma Nuclear Story -- And Our Response

An article written by David Ignatius, which contains more details and context, can be found here: Innocence Abroad: The New World of spyless Coups

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

The CIA is an instrument of capitalist imperialism and covert interventionism which serves the interests of the ruling (Capitalist) class in the United States. It works to maintain global dominance and advance U.S. geopolitical interests: subjugating nations, exploiting their resources, and preventing the rise of Socialist or anti-imperialist movements.

Methods including coups, assassinations, and support for right-wing regimes are used to undermine sovereign nations and popular movements that challenge Capitalist hegemony.

The CIA's historical association with anti-Communist activities is a significant concern for us. During the Cold War, the CIA was involved in countering Socialist and Communist movements around the world, often collaborating with repressive regimes and engaging in propaganda campaigns against leftist ideologies. The CIA's secretive nature and lack of transparency make it susceptible to abuses of power. The agency's covert operations are a way for Capitalist interests to exert control without public scrutiny, undermining democratic principles.

• The CIA is a Terrorist Organization | SecondThought (2020)
• Former CIA Agent John Stockwell Talks about How the CIA Worked in Vietnam and Elsewhere
• CIA Officer Frank Snepp Discusses Planting Stories in Vietnam
• John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015
• Kissinger and the CIA in Chile: An Interview With Peter Kornbluh, Part I | Truthdig (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Ideological State Apparatuses

"Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISAs) is a concept introduced by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. According to Althusser, the state, as a dominant institution, uses various mechanisms to maintain its control and influence over society. ISAs are one of the key components of this control apparatus, alongside the "Repressive State Apparatuses" (RSAs), which involve institutions that use force or coercion to uphold state power, such as the police and military.

Ideological State Apparatuses encompass a wide range of institutions, practices, and organizations that disseminate dominant ideologies, beliefs, values, and norms within society. Their primary function is to secure the consent and conformity of individuals to the ruling ideology, thereby maintaining the existing social order and perpetuating the hegemony of the ruling class.

This series highlights some of the major institutions which operate(d) in this sphere.

• The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): The CIA can be understood as both an Ideological State Apparatus and a Repressive State Apparatus. While its primary function is espionage and intelligence gathering, it is also involved in shaping ideological narratives and perceptions, both within the U.S. and abroad.
• The National Endowment for Democracy (NED): The NED functions as an indirect Ideological State Apparatus by providing funding to various organizations that support democratic development and human rights advocacy worldwide.
• The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM): Through its broadcasting and media activities, the USAGM disseminates information and narratives that align with the dominant U.S. foreign policy objectives and promote American values and interests abroad.
• The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): The CFR is composed of influential individuals from various sectors, such as business, academia, and media, who shape and promote a particular worldview regarding U.S. foreign policy and global affairs. Through its forums, publications, and policy recommendations, the CFR disseminates ideas and perspectives that align with the interests of the capitalist ruling class. It contributes to the legitimization of American imperialism, neoliberal economic policies, and the promotion of corporate interests in the realm of foreign affairs.
• The Information Research Department (IRD): Now officially defunct, the IRD was a propaganda department of the British Foreign Office, created to publish anti-Communist propaganda, including false flag propaganda, provide support and information to anti-Communist politicians, academics, and writers, and to use weaponized information, disinformation, and "fake news" to attack not only the Soviets, but also Socialist and anti-colonial movements.

These organizations are all part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism; they seek to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the regions in which they operate. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, the media outlets funded and amplified by these organizations are tools of U.S. foreign policy, which help shape the narrative in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• You've Never Had an Original Thought (Media Manipulation and "Freedom" of the Press) | Hakim (2022)
• Why Is US Media Becoming More Right-Wing? | Second Thought (2022)
• Why "Hearing Both Sides" Is Dangerous | Second Thought (2022)
• Who Funds And Controls The Online Right? | Yugopnik (2022)
• You're Not Immune To Propaganda | Second Thought (2023)
• Why Is There So Much Right-Wing Media? | Second Thought (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

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

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

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 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.

After all, 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

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"

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?

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)

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

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

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 | Hakim (2023)
• A Critical Read of Animal Farm | Jones Manoel (2022)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

On Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The tu quoque fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."

When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising valid concerns, but usually for invalid reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.

However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:

1. Contextualization: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. Comparative analysis: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. Moral equivalence: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.

An Abstract Case Study

For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.

| | Object A | Object B | |:------------------ |:-------- |:-------- | | Very Good Property | 2 | 3 | | Good Property | 2 | 1 | | Bad Property | 2 | 3 | | Very Bad Property | 2 | 1 |

The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).

Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.

Contextualization

Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:

1. Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently. Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object. We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.

If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.

It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and especially the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we are in the second context and we are not evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.

Comparative Analysis

Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:

> B Enthusiast: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > > A Enthusiast: But Object B has Very Bad Property = 1 which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > > B Enthusiast: Well Object A also has Very Bad Property, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > > A Enthusiast: That's whataboutism! That's a tu quoque! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!

The "A Enthusiast" is not wrong, it is Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was better than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.

Our main proposition as Communists is this: "Socialism is better than Capitalism." Our argument is not "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are not trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because bad thing happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.

Moral Equivalence

It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive compared to taking no steps at all.

Example 1: Famine

Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [[r.TheDeprogram The Holodomor|the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933]] or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occurred, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the last[^1] famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.

[^1]: The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.

Example 2: Repression

Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as authoritarian regimes that restrict individual freedoms. They point to purges and gulags as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people today than the USSR ever did.

Conclusion

While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.

Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: critical.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.

Additional Resources

• Former Socialism's Faults | Hakim (2023)
• Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit) | TheDeprogram (2022)
• Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned | ChemicalMind (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Ergo Decedo

Also known as the "traitorous critic fallacy", Ergo Decedo is a bad faith rhetorical fallacy that takes the form of:

• If you love country so much, why don't you go live there?
• If you hate country so much, why don't you leave?

This fallacy completely ignores the substance of the claim they are responding to, and implies that no one can criticize their own country or praise any other country.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Protest Advice

Clothing:

• Wear nondescript, solid color, layered clothing, making sure to cover any identifying traits (tattoos, birth marks, scars, etc.);
• Goggles and a face mask are recommended: goggles for avoiding pepper spray, masks for tear gas (and Covid, stay safe folks!);
• Write down your emergency contacts somewhere EMT's or other protesters can easily find (on the inside of your arm, for example);
• Heat resistant gloves (can prove useful in many situations, plus they hide fingerprints);
• If you have long hair, tie it up

Do bring:

• Water, for hydration, treating tear gas burns and cleaning wounds in a pinch, bring extra if you can to account for others that might need it;
• Snacks: sugar packets, cereal bars, some fruit, etc;
• Some pocket money for emergencies as well as your ID;
• First aid-kit: rubbing alcohol, band aids, gauze can all be useful in a sticky situation;
• Ear plugs;

Don't bring:

• Your cellphone, if you absolutely must have a phone, use a burner, the more analog the better;
• Jewelry: necklaces, rings and earrings/piercings can get caught in a million different places and you could get hurt;
• Anything incriminating: no illegal substances/weapons/other that might give cops a reason to put you in custody;
• Contact lenses, not only can they fall off, if hit by tear gas it will just make it burn for longer, and taking them out proves even harder, take glasses instead.

How to get involved:

• Seek out local organizations that might be organizing protests in your area;
• If possible get at least one friend to go with you, ideally a bigger group so you can keep each other safe
• Make sure to check the organizations beforehand! Some orgs may be working with law enforcement to keep tabs on protesters, exert caution when researching.

General Advice

• Stay away from choke points: narrow alleyways, stairways, and similar tight or overcrowded places;
• Don't talk to cops, ever. If you are detained, immediately ask for a lawyer and say nothing else. Only talk to your lawyer, if they allow you to make a phonecall, avoid telling any relevant information to your family/friends. Cops can't legally listen to your call with a lawyer, but they will listen in if you call a family member;
• Don't talk to the press or media. They will just twist your words to fulfill their agenda and give justification for further repression of protests.
• If you must bring a phone (please don't), absolutely do not post on social media, especially live-posting-- you're just doing the cops' job for them;
• Stay calm but vigilant, look out for anyone that might be out to cause trouble within the protesters, and be mindful of undercover cops. Caution is the key word here.
• If you wanna record/photograph the protest, use a separate camera instead of your phone, but avoid bringing your biggest most expensive camera gear, it will just be something else to worry about. Blur out any identifiable faces before posting.
• Stay safe, vigilant and united. Avoid direct confrontation with cops as much as possible, keep your distance as best you can, and if you smell trouble, back away in the safest possible way.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Get Involved

> Dare to struggle and dare to win. > > — Mao Zedong

Comrades, here are some ways you can get involved in real life to advance the cause.

• ⭐ Party work — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. Get involved with a campaign or project.
• 📣 Union work — Find out which union covers you. Read the collective agreement. Strive to become the workplace delegate. Organize fellow workers.
• 📚 Read widely — Reading theory is a duty. Also, study the real world: local news, marginalized perspectives, or even bourgeois economics.
• 🗣️ Talk to people — Identify issues affecting friends and coworkers and explain these using everyday language. Also, don’t always Work From Home.
• 🏘️ Mass work — Connect with the wider community through mutual aid, local elections, cultural centers, churches, pride events, etc.
• 📝 Write articles — Contribute your knowledge to ProleWiki or a party publication.
• 💵 Support creators — Donate to leftist content creators so they can produce high-quality content. (e.g., Patreon)
• 🛠️ Career choices — Younger comrades may consider the following:
  • Trade unionist — Work hard to gain a leadership position in the union, then push for militancy and correct policies.
  • Blue-collar/Services — Unionize your workplace or increase union density.
  • High school teacher — Make a lasting impact on the next generation.
  • Master’s thesis — Apply Marxism–Leninism to local and present-day conditions.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Class Struggle

The Marxist definition of economic class stands in stark opposition to the Liberal understanding of class. The Liberal understanding is quantitative, looking only at how much someone makes, whereas the Marxist definition is qualitative, looking at how people relate to commodity production in society.

Marxist Definitions

• The Bourgeoisie, also known as the Capitalist class or the owning class, are the owners of the means of production (e.g., factories, tool, equipment, land, technology, etc.) who accumulate wealth and profit by exploiting the labour of the working class and controlling the means of production in order to produce commodities for profit.
• The Proletariat, also known as the working class, do not own the means of production but instead sell their labour-power to the Bourgeoisie in exchange for wages. They are the ones responsible for producing goods and services but often face exploitation and economic hardships.
• The Petty Bourgeoisie consists of small business owners, self-employed individuals, and skilled professionals. They own some means of production but are often caught in an intermediate position between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, facing challenges from both classes.
• The Lumpenproletariat refers to a marginalized and impoverished social group that includes people who may be unemployed, homeless, or engaged in informal and illegal activities. They do not have a clear role in the Capitalist mode of production and are often considered to be outside the traditional working class.

Class Struggle

Class struggle is the central driving force in human history and society. It refers to the ongoing conflict and antagonism between different social classes resulting from the inherent contradictions within the current mode of production.

Under Capitalism, the principal contradiction is between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Capitalist class profits by extracting surplus value from the labour of the workers, leading to economic exploitation and social oppression. This is the principal contradiction of Capitalism, and why the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat are irreconcilably opposed. To summarize:

• Capitalists want to keep hours long, prices high, wages low, etc.
• Workers want reasonable hours, affordable prices, high wages, etc.

These interests are mutually exclusive. The good news is that Capitalists need workers, but workers don't need Capitalists; the class war is winnable by us and only us.

These contradictions and struggles, more than any other model, explain the current political landscape:

• Why The Political Compass is Wrong: Establishing An Accurate Model of Political Ideology | halim alrah (2019)

Intersectionality

> Anti-Capitalism without Intersectionality is class reductionism. Intersectionality without anti-Capitalism is Liberal identity politics.

Intersectionality is a framework that recognizes and analyzes the interconnected nature of various forms of oppression faced by individuals who belong to various marginalized groups. Economic structures, institutions, and class relations intersect with other social hierarchies, leading to complex and varied forms of oppression and exploitation in society. Intersectionality helps highlight these overlapping forms of discrimination and their cumulative impact. For example, a working-class woman of color may experience racism, sexism, and classism simultaneously, each influencing and exacerbating the others.

If you watched the video from the previous section, particularly the "Culture War" chapter, then you'll already know why this matters. Sowing division along various social lines creates pockets of economically and politically vulnerable workers that the Capitalists can exploit to a much greater degree. These oppressed groups also help to depress wages and worsen working conditions for the rest of the workforce, due to competition in the labour market.

> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. > > — Lyndon B. Johnson. (1960). Remark to a staffer

• Why Do Socialists Care About Intersectional Liberation Movements? | Second Thought (2022)

Total Liberation

> The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free. > > — Maya Angelou

Developing class consciousness is crucial for the working class to organize effectively and advance our revolutionary goals. Intersectionality encourages us to be inclusive and create solidarity by recognizing and respecting the different experiences and struggles within the working class and actively supporting each other's fight for justice and equality.

> Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. > > — Karl Marx. (1867). Capital: Volume One

Oppressive power structures are interconnected and reinforce each other. Capitalism, Imperialism, Colonialism, Patriarchy, White Supremacy, and other systems of domination are all inextricably intertwined and must be challenged simultaneously to achieve true liberation for the working class.

> A people which oppresses another cannot emancipate itself. > > — Friedrich Engels. (1874). A Polish Proclamation

Radical solidarity is required, and therefore all forms of chauvinism and bigotry must be fiercely combatted.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• What Is Social Class? | Socialism 101 #6 | Marxism Today (2021)
• The Professional-Managerial Class Doesn't Exist | Marxism Today (2020)
• The Middle Class doesn't exist | How a fabricated myth divided the working class. | Yugopnik (2020)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• The Principles of Communism | F. Engels (1847)
• Manifesto of the Communist Party | K. Marx & F. Engels (1848)

Podcasts:

• Episode 38: Boug…borj…wtf is class? | The Deprogram (2022)
• Episode 42: There's more to it than just class - the importance of intersectionality | The Deprogram (2022)

This what Hakim was talking about this week.

Someone correctly pointing out that calling people fat is bad is downvoted, and someone called "literally_himmler1" replying with a nerd emoji is upvoted.

I am going to commit sudoku.

@thedeprogram Just finished Episode 7 on the L’s of Former Socialism. Can you recommend any good books or articles for further reading on what future socialism can or should do differently?

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a prominent Soviet dissident and outspoken critic of Communism. The Gulag Archipelago, one of the most famous texts on the subject, claims to be a work of non-fiction based on the author's personal experiences in the Soviet prison system. However, Solzhenitsyn was merely an anti-Communist, Nazi-sympathizing, antisemite who wanted to slander the USSR by putting forward a collection of folktales as truth.

In 1945, during WWII, as a Captain in the Red Army, Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to an eight-year term in a labour camp for creating anti-Soviet propaganda and founding a hostile organization aimed at overthrowing the Soviet government.

> ...[Solzhenitsyn] encounters his secondary school friend, Nikolai Vitkevich, and they recklessly share candid political discussions critical of Stalin's conduct of the war: > > > These two young officers, after days of discussion, astonishingly drew up a program for change, entitled "Resolution No. 1." They argued that the Soviet regime stifled economic development, literature, culture, and everyday life; a new organization was needed to fight to put things right." > > These discussions were not cynical, but resonate with ideological ardour and zealous patriotism. Solzhenitsyn heedlessly stores "Resolution No. 1" in his map case. In nineteen months, it, along with copies of all correspondence between himself and Vitkevich from April 1944 to February 1945 will serve to convict Solzhenitsyn of anti-Soviet propaganda under Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code, paragraph 10 and of founding a hostile organization under paragraph 11. > > — Dale Hardy. (2001). Solzhenitsyn in confession

And he wasn't merely some Left Oppositionist striving for "real" socialism, he was a hardcore Russian Nationalist who sympathized with the Nazis:

> ...in his assessment of the Second World War, [Solzhenitsyn stated] ‘the German army could have liberated the Soviet Union from Communism but Hit1er was stupid and did not use this weapon.’ It seems extraordinary that Solzhenitsyn saw the failure of Nazi Germany to annex the Soviet Union as some kind of missed opportunity... > > — Simon Demissie. (2013). New files from 1983 – Thatcher meets Solzhenitsyn

"This weapon" referring to the various counter-revolutionary, anti-Stalin groups that could be weaponized to dissolve the USSR from within.

The biggest problem with The Gulag Archipelago, though, is that it is billed as a work of non-fiction based on his personal experiences. There is good reason to believe this is not the case. His ideological background makes him biased against Communism and against the Soviet government. He also had material incentive to promote it this way; it was a major commercial success and quickly became an international bestseller, selling millions of copies in multiple languages. It has essentially become the Bible of anti-Soviet propaganda, with new editions containing forewords from anti-Communists like Jordan Peterson. It likely would not have performed so well or been such effective propaganda had it been advertised merely as a compilation of folk tales, which is exactly how Solzhenitsyn's ex-wife describes it:

> She also told the newspaper's Moscow correspondent that she was still living with Mr. Soizhenitsyn when he wrote the book and that she had typed part of it. They parted in 1970 and were subsequently divorced. > > She said: “The subject of ‘Gulag Archipelago,’ as I felt at the moment when he was writing it, is not in fact the life of the country and not even the life of the camps but the folklore of the camps.” > > — New York Times. (1974). Solzhenitsyn's Ex‐Wife Says ‘Gulag’ Is ‘Folklore’

Solzhenitsyn's casual relationship with the truth is evident in his later work as well, establishing a pattern that discredits The Gulag Archipelago as a serious historical account. Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite who indulged in the Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory. In his 2003 book, Two Hundred Years Together, he wrote that "from 20 ministers in the first Soviet government one was Russian, one Georgian, one Armenian and 17 Jews". In reality, there were 15 Commissars in the first Soviet government, not 20: 11 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 1 Pole, and only 1 Jew. He stated: "I had to bury many comrades at the front, but not once did I have to bury a Jew". He also stated that according to his personal experience, Jews had a much easier life in the Gulag camps that he was interned in.

According to the Northwestern University historian Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern: Solzhenitsyn used unreliable and manipulated figures and ignored both evidence unfavorable to his own point of view and numerous publications of reputable authors in Jewish history. He claimed that Jews promoted alcoholism among the peasantry, flooded the retail trade with contraband, and "strangled" the Russian merchant class in Moscow. He called Jews non-producing people ("непроизводительный народ") who refused to engage in factory labor. He said they were averse to agriculture and unwilling to till the land either in Russia, in Argentina, or in Palestine, and he blamed the Jews' own behavior for pogroms. He also claimed that Jews used Kabbalah to tempt Russians into heresy, seduced Russians with rationalism and fashion, provoked sectarianism and weakened the financial system, committed murders on the orders of qahal authorities, and exerted undue influence on the prerevolutionary government. Petrovsky-Shtern concludes that, "200 Years Together is destined to take a place of honor in the canon of russophone antisemitica."

Fun Fact: After Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the USSR, Robert Conquest helped him translate his poetry into English.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-07-24%%

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

US Support

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid: as of February 2022, the United States had provided Israel US$150 billion (non-inflation-adjusted) in bilateral assistance. In 1999, the US government signed a Memorandum of Understanding which committed to providing Israel with at least US$2.67 billion in military aid annually, for the following ten years; in 2009, the annual amount was raised to US$3 billion; and in 2019, the amount was raised again, now standing at a minimum of US$3.8 billion that the US is committed to providing Israel each year. Former Senator Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, referred to Israel as "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".

The United States is also Israel's largest trading partner, with two-way trade totalling $36 billion in 2013 and nearly $50 billion by 2023.

In addition to financial and military aid, the United States also provides large-scale political support to Israel, having used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of a total of 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Between 1991 and 2011, out of the 24 vetoes invoked by the United States, 15 were used to protect Israel. The United States' readiness to stand on behalf of Israel has been linked to the influence of pro-Israeli lobbies in U.S. politics, most notably AIPAC.

> Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing ... to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness ... These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators ... You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’ > > AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates... > > The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ > > — John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. (2006). The Israel Lobby

Christian Zionism

> Since the 1940s, Christian Zionism has become a global movement with a vast network of organizations. Both American and global Christian Zionism have promoted a theological, political, and cultural transformation in Christian attitudes toward Jews and Israel which has shaped US-Israel diplomacy and Jewish-Christian relations around the globe. > > — "Christian Zionism, the Religious Right, and Donald Trump: History’s Role in Contemporary Politics" | Harvard Kennedy School: ASH Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation

Christian Zionists interpret certain biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, as predicting the return of Jews to the Promised Land and the restoration of Israel as a nation. They view the modern State of Israel as a fulfillment of these prophecies and consider it a necessary step towards the Second Coming of Christ.

> US Christian Zionism may be characterized as a theo-political movement stemming from American Conservative Evangelicalism, which advocates that at the end of the time Christ will come to rule the world for thousand years before the Last Judgment and that He will do so centred on Greater Israel and focused on Jerusalem. Although difficult to assess, the current proportion of Christian Zionists among the 100-130 million of American Evangelicals (the population of United States is 293 million) could be estimated around 20-25%. In light of an Eschatological fulfilment, Christian Zionist congregations and lobbies, even more dedicated than the majority of Jewish interest groups, provide vast political, financial and practical support to the modern State of Israel. > > — Carlo Aldrovandi. (2009). Forcing the End Times: US Christian Zionism and Israel

The British, in particular, viewed the territory of Palestine as strategically significant due to its proximity to the Suez Canal and its potential as a route to India, one of their most prized colonial possessions. Additionally, there were British officials and politicians, including those influenced by Christian Zionism, who held a strong belief in the historical and religious significance of Palestine to the Jewish people.

> Irrespective of its genuine strategic objectives or its complex historical consequences, the campaign in Palestine during the first world war was seen by the British government as an invaluable exercise in propaganda. Keen to capitalize on the romantic appeal of victory in the Holy Land, British propagandists repeatedly alluded to Richard Coeur de Lion's failure to win Jerusalem, thus generating the widely disseminated image of the 1917-18 Palestine campaign as the 'Last' or the 'New' Crusade. This representation, in turn, with its anti-Moslem overtones, introduced complicated problems for the British propaganda apparatus, to the point (demonstrated here through an array of official documentation, press accounts and popular works) of becoming enmeshed in a hopeless web of contradictory directives. > > — Eitan Bar-Yosef. (2001). The Last Crusade? British Propaganda and the Palestine Campaign, 1917-18

The British refusal to grant independence to the Arabs after the Arab Uprising against the Ottoman Empire in WWI can be attributed to the prevailing colonial mindset of the time (which led the British to prioritize their own strategic and geopolitical interests over the promises made to the Arabs) and the appeal of controlling a geopolitically and Biblically significant territory. The desire to secure their own interests ultimately outweighed their commitment to honoring their promises to the Arabs.

Weaponizing Anti-Anti-Semitism

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are two prominent organizations that advocate for Israel and combat antisemitism. While their primary objectives are to support Israel's interests and protect Jewish communities from discrimination, there have been instances where accusations of antisemitism have been used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. It is important to note that not all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic, and it is crucial to differentiate between legitimate criticism and actual instances of prejudice.

However, Zionist organizations have weaponized the accusation of "antisemitism" to silence criticism of Israel in Western Liberal Democracies. Anyone who is critical of Israel is labeled an Anti-Zionist, and therefore, an antisemite.

The ADL makes the following definitions:

• Zionism:

> Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.

• Anti-Zionism:

> Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the movement for the self-determination and statehood of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. Anti-Zionism is often expressed, explicitly or implicitly in the rejection of Jewish nationhood and the right to self-determination; the vilification of individuals and groups associated with Zionism; and the downplaying or negation of the historic and spiritual Jewish connection to the land of Israel. > > Anti-Zionism is distinct from criticism of the policies or actions of the government of Israel, or critiques of specific policies of the pre-state Zionist movement, in that it attacks the foundational legitimacy of Jewish statehood. > > Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states.

Despite theoretically allowing room for criticism of specific policies, any general criticism of Israel is interpreted through this lens as antisemitic, and the critic is dismissed as a bigot and silenced. Politicians, particularly in the West, regularly get into trouble for criticizing Israel. There have been countless examples of progressive politicians being forced to publicly apologize after criticizing Israel.

Criticism of Israel, this way, is manipulated and distorted into claims of antisemitism as a means of silencing dissenting voices and discouraging open discussion. This tactic involves conflating legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli policies with prejudice against Jewish people, thereby undermining the credibility of those raising concerns. By falsely equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, as the ADL does, individuals and organizations can casually delegitimize valid perspectives and stifle debate on this contentious issue. This manipulation not only harms free speech and the ability to engage in constructive dialogue, but also trivializes the seriousness of true anti-Semitism, diverting attention away from genuine instances of discrimination. It is crucial to distinguish between criticism of Israel and Israeli policies and true antisemitism.

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Israel: A Colonial Project from Inception

Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, was inspired by European Colonialism. He was passionate about the Zionist project of founding a Jewish state, and even appealed to Cecil Rhodes, an infamous English colonialist, for support in this colonial endeavour:

> You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen, but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial. > > — Theodor Herzl. (1902). Letter to Cecil Rhodes

Herzl also wrote in his famous pamphlet about the colonial tasks that would be undertaken:

> Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration... > > The Jewish Company is partly modeled on the lines of a great land-acquisition company. It might be called a Jewish Chartered Company, though it cannot exercise sovereign power, and has other than purely colonial tasks. > > — Theodor Herzl. (1896). The Jewish State

Israel also occupies a very important geopolitical location in the world. This topological map of the world, which shows international borders and nothing else, demonstrates how Israel is a bottleneck on land, and a land bridge between the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Sea (via the Red Sea). Herzl appealed to its central location:

> It is more and more to the interest of the civilized nations and of civilization in general that a cultural station be established on the shortest road to Asia. Palestine is this station and we Jews are the bearers of culture who are ready to give our property and our lives to bring about its creation. > > — Theodor Herzl. (1897). Address to the First Zionist Congress

As the Zionist project developed, the colonial character was undeniable:

> The colonization process revealed an even more telling feature of the nature of Zionism. The names and purposes of the early colonization instruments read as follows: "The Jewish Colonial Trust" (1898), the "Colonization Commission" (1898), the "Palestine Land Development Company." From the start the Zionist colonists sought to acquire lands in strategic locations, evict the Arab peasants and boycott Arab labour, all of which were requirements closely related with the essence of Zionism, the creation of a Jewish nation on "purely" Jewish land, as Jewish as England was English to use the famous Zionist expression... > > What about the fate of the natives? "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... The property owners will come to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." > > But before spiriting them away Herzl had some jobs for the local population: "If we move into a region where there are wild animals to which the Jews are not accustomed - big snakes, etc... I shall use the natives, prior to giving them employment in the transit countries, for the extermination of the animals." > > — Abdul-Wahab Kayyali. (1977). Zionism and Imperialism: The Historical Origins

Nakba and Illegal Settlements

Following the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the ensuing expulsion of Palestinians became known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe" in Arabic).

> The Palestinians were driven out of their homeland and their properties, homes were taken away from them, and they were banished and displaced all over the world to face all kinds of suffering and woes. More than three quarters of historic Palestine were occupied in the Nakba of 1948. Moreover, 531 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and 85% of the Palestinian population were banished and displaced... > > Israelis controlled 774 towns and villages during the Nakba. They destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages. Israeli forces atrocities also include more than 70 massacres against Palestinians killing 15,000 Palestinians during Nakba time... > > Nakba in literary terms is expressive of natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes. However, the Nakba of Palestine is an ethnic cleansing process as well as destruction and banishment of an unarmed nation to be replaced by another nation. > > — Luay Shabaneh. (2008).

Around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs out of the 900,000 who lived in the territories that became Israel fled or were expelled from their homes. Wells were poisoned to prevent their return. Even after the state of Israel was formally established, it continued to expand into Palestinian land, displacing the Palestinian people and creating illegal settlements to this day.

> The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders. > > — UN Security Council. (2016). Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms

These policies and practices have predictable outcomes:

> Since the occupation first began in June 1967, Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights. > > Israel’s military rule disrupts every aspect of daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It continues to affect whether, when and how Palestinians can travel to work or school, go abroad, visit their relatives, earn a living, attend a protest, access their farmland, or even access electricity or a clean water supply. It means daily humiliation, fear and oppression. People’s entire lives are effectively held hostage by Israel. > > — Amnesty International. (2017). Israel's Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession

These illegal settlements also violate the Geneva Convention:

> Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. > > Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. > > — Amnesty International. (2019). Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law

Apartheid

Israel's inspiration from European colonialism also clearly laid the foundation for an apartheid regime. The word "apartheid" is a term derived from the Afrikaans language which means "separateness". Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, former South African Prime Minister, is infamously credited with being the principal architect of apartheid. In 1961, when the UN (including Israel) voted to condemn South Africa for its apartheid policies, Verwoerd said: "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."

> Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has control over their rights. This includes Palestinians living in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), as well as displaced refugees in other countries. > > — Amnesty International. (2022). Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

​

> Across these areas and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity. In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. > > — Human Rights Watch. (2021). A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

​

> A UN expert called today on the international community to accept and adopt the findings in his current report, echoing recent findings by Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organisations, that apartheid is being practiced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. > > “There is today in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 a deeply discriminatory dual legal and political system that privileges the 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers living in the 300 illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. > > — Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert | UNHCR (2022)

​

> Citing inhumane acts, arbitrary and extra-judicial killings, torture, the denial of fundamental rights, an abysmal child mortality rate, collective punishment, an abusive military court system, and home demolitions, [Michael] Lynk said the international community bears much responsibility for the present situation. > > — Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert | UN News (2022)

Additional Resources

• Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments) | BadEmpanada (2022)
• Facing the Nakba | Jewish Voice for Peace
• Our Catastrophe | JewishCurrents (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Israel: A Timeline

• 1840: The Damascus Affair, a case of anti-Semitic persecution in Damascus, Syria. This incident sparks discussions among European Jews about establishing a Jewish homeland.
• 1862: Moses Hess, a Jewish philosopher, publishes "Rome and Jerusalem," advocating for a Jewish socialist state in Palestine.
• 1882: The First Aliyah begins, marking the first significant wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine, which increases the Jewish population from 3% to 8% of the total population.
• 1896: Theodor Herzl, a leading Zionist, publishes The Jewish State, one of the most important texts of modern Zionism, which argues that the best way to avoid antisemitism in Europe is to create an independent Jewish state, and encourages Jews to purchase land in Palestine, although the possibility of a Jewish state in Argentina is also considered.
• 1897: The First Zionist Congress is held in Basel, Switzerland, and establishes the World Zionist Organization, led by Herzl.
• 1914-1918: World War I breaks out, and the Ottoman Empire (which had controlled Palestine for hundreds of years) aligns with Germany and the Central Powers.
• 1916: With the assent of the Russian Empire and Italy, the United Kingdom and France agree to divide the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence after the war, according to the Sykes–Picot Agreement.
• 1916: The British assure Sharif Hussein of Arab independence in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence in exchange for support against the Ottomans.
• 1916-1918: The Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire-- led by Hussein's forces in alliance with the British, Arab forces achieve military successes against the Ottomans in the Arabian Peninsula.
• 1917: The Balfour Declaration is issued to Lord Rothschild, expressing British support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
• 1917: Shortly after the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks release a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). Following this revelation, "the British [are] embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted". The agreement led to a legacy of resentment in the region, among Arabs in particular, but also among Kurds who were denied an independent state.
• 1918: WW1 ends in defeat for the Ottoman empire.
• 1919: The Paris Peace Conference is held, leading to the establishment of the League of Nations and the mandate system.
• 1919: Hussein refuses to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in protest of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of British and French mandates in Syria, Iraq, and Palestine. The failure to deliver independence as promised is understood by the Arabs as an act of betrayal and a violation of the national right to self-determination for Arab peoples, which the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence had promised.
• 1920: The San Remo conference grants Britain a mandate over Palestine, creating Mandatory Palestine. The mandate includes a commitment to implement the Balfour Declaration.
• 1922: The League of Nations approves the British Mandate for Palestine, which incorporates the Balfour Declaration.
• 1924: After his continued refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the British switch their support from Hussein to Ibn Saud, who then conquers Hussein's kingdom, and eventually forms Saudi Arabia in 1932.
• 1920s-1930s: Jewish immigration to Palestine increases dramatically, bringing the Jewish population up to over 30% of the total.
• 1936-1939: The Arab Revolt in Palestine takes place, led by Palestinians protesting the British administration of the Palestine Mandate and demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".
• 1941-1945: The Holocaust forces many more European Jews to flee to British Palestine and galvanizes international support for a Jewish state.
• 1944-1948: The White Paper of 1939 outlines new British policies to place restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, and declares the intention of giving independence to Palestine, with an Arab majority, within ten years. In response, a successful paramilitary campaign is carried out by Zionist underground groups against British rule in Mandatory Palestine.
• 1947: The U.N. proposes a Partition Plan for separate states. The proposed allocation of territory for the Jewish and Arab states is approximately 56% and 43%, respectively, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. The plan is accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, who view it as unjust and unfair.
• 1947: Following the UN partition plan, violence escalates between Jewish and Arab communities in Mandatory Palestine into civil war. Both sides engage in armed conflicts, leading to widespread displacement and casualties.
• 1948: On May 14, 1948, the Jewish leadership, led by David Ben-Gurion, declare the establishment of the State of Israel. The declaration is made shortly before the expiration of the British mandate. The newly established state is recognized by some countries, but not by the surrounding Arab nations, who attack.
• 1948: Following the failure of the First Arab–Israeli War to secure Arab independence in the region, Israel's territory expands to approximately 78% of Mandatory Palestine. The remaining territories are controlled by Jordan (West Bank, including East Jerusalem) and Egypt (Gaza Strip). In the course of this conflict, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people are forced to leave. (Known as the Nakba. Villages were destroyed, wells were poisoned, and people were massacred.
• 1967: Following the Six-Day War, Israel gains control over several territories that were previously under the administration of other entities. These territories include the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. As a result of the territorial gains made during the Six-Day War, Israel comes to occupy and control a significantly larger percentage of Mandatory Palestine than before the war.
• 1978: Egypt agrees to The Camp David Accords with Israel. This sees the Sinai Peninsula returned to Egypt, and a general cooling of tensions between Israel and the Arab world. This also marks a shift away from conflict between Israel and neighbouring Arab states towards internal conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population. Hard-liners oppose this, and the Egyptian president who ratified them is assassinated in 1981.
• 1987-1993: Palestinians, collectively frustrated by Israel's continued military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, launch the First Intifada.
• 1993: The Oslo Accords, which have been characterized as "the Palestinian Versailles", are signed. These allow the Palestinians to have limited self-rule in specific, fragmented locations within the West Bank. Hard-liners on both sides oppose these accords, and a far-right Israeli assassinates the Israeli Prime Minister in 1995.
• 2000-2005: The Second Intifada takes place, resulting in increased violence and tensions between the Palestinians and the Israelis (note to matt double check). Israel shifts towards an overt, fascist police state to enforce apartheid rule instead of pursuing peace.
• 2005: Hamas takes control of the Gaza strip, breaking with the Palestinian Authority which controls the West Bank. Israel withdraws its settlements from the Gaza Strip and begins a crippling blockade which continues to this day.
• 2014: The Gaza War takes place, a major conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Additional Resources

• The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history | Vox (2016)
• Maps: Vanishing Palestine | Al Jazeera

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Israel

> If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. You pull it all the way out? That's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made-- and they haven't even begun to pull the knife out, much less heal the wound... They won't even admit the knife is there! > > — Malcolm X. (1964).

Inventing Israel

> History lies at the core of every conflict. A true and unbiased understanding of the past offers the possibility of peace. The distortion or manipulation of history, in contrast, will only sow disaster. As the example of the Israel-Palestine conflict shows, historical disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do tremendous harm. This willful misunderstanding of history can promote oppression and protect a regime of colonization and occupation. It is not surprising, therefore, that policies of disinformation and distortion continue to the present and play an important part in perpetuating the conflict, leaving very little hope for the future. > > — Ilan Pappé. (2017). Ten Myths About Israel

Zionists argue that Jews have a deep historical connection to the land of Israel, based on their ancient presence in the region. They emphasize the significance of Jerusalem as a religious and cultural center for Jews throughout history. They use this argument as justification for the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.

In Israel's own Declaration of Independence this is clearly stated:

> The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. ... After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. ... Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. ... > > ACCORDINGLY WE ... BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT ... HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL

This declaration, however, conveniently ignored the issue of the indigenous Palestinian population. So what happened? In the Arab world it is now know as the Nakba (lit. catastrophe, in Arabic). One particularly emblematic example of the Nakba was this:

In April 1948, Lehi and Irgun (Zionist paramilitary groups), headed by Menachim Begin, attacked Deir Yassin-- a village of 700 Palestinians-- ultimately killing between 100 and 120 villagers in what later became known as the Deir Yassin Massacre. The mastermind behind this attack, who would later be elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1977, justified the attack:

> Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of ‘Irgun butchery,’ were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened, uncontrollable stampede. The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated. > > — Menachim Begin. (1951). The Revolt

The painful irony of this argument (ancestral roots) combined with this approach (ethnic cleansing), however, lies in the shared ancestry between Jews and Palestinians, whose roots can both be traced back to common ancestors. Both peoples have historical connections to the land of Palestine, making it a place of shared heritage rather than exclusive entitlement. The underlying assumption that the formation of Israel represents a return of Jews to the rightful land of their ancestors is used to justify the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, who have the very same roots!

The Timeline

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and protracted dispute rooted in historical, political, and territorial factors. This timeline aims to provide a chronological overview of key events, starting from the late 19th century to the present day, highlighting significant developments, conflicts, and diplomatic efforts that have shaped the ongoing conflict. From the early waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, through the British Mandate period, the Arab-Israeli wars, peace initiatives, and the persistent struggle for self-determination, this timeline seeks to provide a historical context to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Explore the timeline here

A Settler-Colonial Project from Inception

The origin of Zionism (the political movement advocating for a Jewish homeland in Palestine) is deeply intertwined with the era of European colonialism. Early Zionists such as Theodor Herzl were inspired by-- and sought support from-- European colonialists and Powers. The Zionist plan for Palestine was structured to follow the same colonial model, with all the oppressive baggage that this entailed. In practice, Israel has all the hallmarks of a Settler-Colonial state, and has even engaged in apartheid practices.

Read about Israel's ideological foundations here

US Backing, Christian Zionism, and Anti-Anti-Semitism

Israel is in a precarious geopolitical position, surrounded by angry Arab neighbours. The foundation of Israel was dependant on the support of Western Powers, and its existence relies on their continued support. Israel has three powerful tools in its belt to ensure this backing never wavers:

1. A powerful lobby which dictates U.S. foreign policy on Israel
2. European and American Christian Zionists who support Israel for eschatological reasons
3. Weaponized Anti-antisemitism to silence criticism

Read more about Israel's support in the West here

Jewish Anti-Zionism

Many Jewish people and organizations do not support Israel and its apartheid settler-colonial project. There are many groups, even on Reddit (for instance, r/JewsOfConscience) that protest Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinian people.

> The Israeli government, with the backing of the U.S. government, subjects Palestinians across the entire land to apartheid — a system of inequality and ongoing displacement that is connected to a racial and class hierarchy amongst Israelis. We are calling on those in power to oppose any policies that privilege one group of people over another, in Israel/Palestine and in the U.S... > > We are IfNotNow, a movement of American Jews organizing our community for equality, justice, and a thriving future for all: our neighbors, ourselves, Palestinians, and Israelis. We are Jews of all ages, with ancestors from across the world and Jewish backgrounds as diverse as the ways we practice our Judaism. > > — If Not Now. Our Principles

Some ultra-orthodox Jewish groups (like Satmar) hold anti-Zionist beliefs on religious grounds. They claim that the establishment of a Jewish state before the arrival of the Messiah is against the teachings of Judaism and that Jews should not have their own sovereign state until the Messiah comes and establishes it in accordance with religious prophecy. In their eyes, the Zionist movement is a secular and nationalistic deviation from traditional Jewish values. Their opposition to Zionism is not driven by anti-Semitism but by religious conviction. They claim that Judaism and Zionism are incompatible and that the actions of the Israeli government do not represent the beliefs and values of authentic Judaism.

> We strive to support local efforts led by our partners for Palestinian rights and freedom, and against Israeli apartheid, occupation, displacement, annexation, aggression, and ongoing assaults on Palestinians. > > — Jews for Racial and Economic Justice. Israel-Palestine as a Local Issue

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history | Vox (2016)
• How To Maybe Criticize Israel? | Some More News (2019)
• Israel-Palestine 2021 conflict explained by Israeli Communist | TheFinnishBolshevik (2021)
• Palestine 101 with Abby Martin | BreakThrough News (2021)
• When Is It Warranted To Call Something Nuanced? | ChemicalMind (2022)
• Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments) | BadEmpanada (2022)
• The Brutal Realities of Settler Colonialism In Palestine | Mohammed el-Kurd | Novara Media (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Ten Myths About Israel | Ilan Pappé (2017)

Other Resources:

• Decolonize Palestine
• Maps: Vanishing Palestine | Al Jazeera
• Facing the Nakba | Jewish Voice for Peace
• Our Catastrophe | JewishCurrents (2023)
• Israel-Palestine Timeline: The Human Cost of the Conflict | If Americans Knew

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Tiananmen Square Protests

(Also known as the June Fourth Incident)

In Western media, the well-known story of the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" goes like this: the Chinese government declared martial law in 1989 and mobilized the military to suppress students who were protesting for democracy and freedom. According to western sources, on June 4th of that year, troops and tanks entered Tiananmen Square and fired on unarmed protesters, killing and injuring hundreds, if not thousands, of people. The more hyperbolic tellings of this story include claims of tanks running over students, machine guns being fired into the crowd, blood running in the streets like a river, etc.

Anti-Communists and Sinophobes commonly point to this incident as a classic example of authoritarianism and political repression under Communist regimes. The problem, of course, is that the actual events in Beijing on June 4th, 1989 unfolded quite differently than how they were depicted in the Western media at the time. Despite many more contemporary articles coming out that actually contradict some of the original claims and characterizations of the June Fourth Incident, the narrative of a "Tiananmen Square Massacre" persists.

Background

After Mao's death in 1976, a power struggle ensued and the Gang of Four were purged, paving the way for Deng Xiaoping's rise to power. Deng initiated economic reforms known as the "Four Modernizations," which aimed to modernize and open up China's economy to the world. These reforms led to significant economic growth and lifted millions of people out of poverty, but they also created significant inequality, corruption, and social unrest. This pivotal point in the PRC's history is extremely controversial among Marxists today and a subject of much debate.

One of the key factors that contributed to the Tiananmen Square protests was the sense of social and economic inequality that many Chinese people felt as a result of Deng's economic reforms. Many believed that the benefits of the country's economic growth were not being distributed fairly, and that the government was not doing enough to address poverty, corruption, and other social issues.

Some saw the Four Modernizations as a betrayal of Maoist principles and a capitulation to Western capitalist interests. Others saw the reforms as essential for China's economic development and modernization. Others still wanted even more liberalization and thought the reforms didn't go far enough.

The protestors in Tiananmen were mostly students who did not represent the great mass of Chinese citizens, but instead represented a layer of the intelligentsia who wanted to be elevated and given more privileges such as more political power and higher wages.

Counterpoints

Jay Mathews, the first Beijing bureau chief for The Washington Post in 1979 and who returned in 1989 to help cover the Tiananmen demonstrations, wrote:

> Over the last decade, many American reporters and editors have accepted a mythical version of that warm, bloody night. They repeated it often before and during Clinton’s trip. On the day the president arrived in Beijing, a Baltimore Sun headline (June 27, page 1A) referred to “Tiananmen, where Chinese students died.” A USA Today article (June 26, page 7A) called Tiananmen the place “where pro-democracy demonstrators were gunned down.” The Wall Street Journal (June 26, page A10) described “the Tiananmen Square massacre” where armed troops ordered to clear demonstrators from the square killed “hundreds or more.” The New York Post (June 25, page 22) said the square was “the site of the student slaughter.” > > The problem is this: as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square. > > — Jay Matthews. (1998). The Myth of Tiananmen and the Price of a Passive Press. Columbia Journalism Review.

Reporters from the BBC, CBS News, and the New York Times who were in Beijing on June 4, 1989, all agree there was no massacre.

Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside the square:

> Cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and released exclusively by The Daily Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square > > — Malcolm Moore. (2011). Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim

Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat, and Chinese-speaking correspondent of the International Business Times, wrote:

> The original story of Chinese troops on the night of 3 and 4 June, 1989 machine-gunning hundreds of innocent student protesters in Beijing’s iconic Tiananmen Square has since been thoroughly discredited by the many witnesses there at the time — among them a Spanish TVE television crew, a Reuters correspondent and protesters themselves, who say that nothing happened other than a military unit entering and asking several hundred of those remaining to leave the Square late that night. > > Yet none of this has stopped the massacre from being revived constantly, and believed. All that has happened is that the location has been changed – from the Square itself to the streets leading to the Square. > > — Gregory Clark. (2014). Tiananmen Square Massacre is a Myth, All We're 'Remembering' are British Lies

Thomas Hon Wing Polin, writing for CounterPunch, wrote:

> The most reliable estimate, from many sources, was that the tragedy took 200-300 lives. Few were students, many were rebellious workers, plus thugs with lethal weapons and hapless bystanders. Some calculations have up to half the dead being PLA soldiers trapped in their armored personnel carriers, buses and tanks as the vehicles were torched. Others were killed and brutally mutilated by protesters with various implements. No one died in Tiananmen Square; most deaths occurred on nearby Chang’an Avenue, many up to a kilometer or more away from the square. > > More than once, government negotiators almost reached a truce with students in the square, only to be sabotaged by radical youth leaders seemingly bent on bloodshed. And the demands of the protesters focused on corruption, not democracy. > > All these facts were known to the US and other governments shortly after the crackdown. Few if any were reported by Western mainstream media, even today. > > — Thomas Hon Wing Palin. (2017). Tiananmen: the Empire’s Big Lie

(Emphasis mine)

And it was, indeed, bloodshed that the student leaders wanted. In this interview, you can hear one of the student leaders, Chai Ling, ghoulishly explaining how she tried to bait the Chinese government into actually committing a massacre. (She herself made sure to stay out of the square.): Excerpts of interviews with Tiananmen Square protest leaders

This Twitter thread contains many pictures and videos showing protestors killing soldiers, commandeering military vehicles, torching military transports, etc.

Following the crackdown, through Operation Yellowbird, many of the student leaders escaped to the United States with the help of the CIA, where they almost all gained privileged positions.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Truth about The Tiananmen Square Protests | Tovarishch Endymion (2019)
• Tiananmen Square "Massacre", A Propaganda Hoax | TeleSUR English (2019)
• All The Questions Socialists Are Asked, Answered (TIMESTAMPED) | Hakim (2021)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Tiananmen Protests Reading List | Qiao Collective
• How psy-ops warriors fooled me about Tiananmen Square: a warning | Nury Vittachi, Friday (2022)
• 1989: Tiananmen Square ‘massacre’ was a myth | Deirdre Griswold, Workers World (2022)
• Massacre? What Massacre? 25 Years Later: What really happened at Tiananmen Square? | Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice (2014)
• Tiananmen: The Massacre that Wasn’t | Brian Becker, Liberation News (2019)
• Reflections on Tiananmen Square and the attempt to end Chinese socialism | Mick Kelly, FightBack! News (2019)
• The Tian’anmen Square “Massacre” The West’s Most Persuasive, Most Pervasive Lie. | Tom, Mango Press (2021)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Uyghurs in Xinjiang

Anti-Communists and Sinophobes claim that there is an ongoing genocide-- a modern-day holocaust, even-- happening right now in China. They say that Uyghur Muslims are being mass incarcerated; they are indoctrinated with propaganda in concentration camps; their organs are being harvested; they are being force-sterilized. These comically villainous allegations have little basis in reality and omit key context.

Background

Xinjiang, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is a province located in the northwest of China. It is the largest province in China, covering an area of over 1.6 million square kilometers, and shares borders with eight other countries including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan.

Xinjiang is a diverse region with a population of over 25 million people, made up of various ethnic groups including the Uyghur, Han Chinese, Kazakhs, Tajiks, and many others. The largest ethnic group in Xinjiang is the Uyghur who are predominantly Muslim and speak a Turkic language. It is also home to the ancient Silk Road cities of Kashgar and Turpan.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, several factors contributed to a resurgence of separatist sentiment among Uyghur nationalists in Xinjiang. Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of violent incidents attributed to extremist Uyghur groups in Xinjiang including bombings, shootings, and knife attacks. Some high-profile examples include:

• Ürümqi bombings (2014): SUVs were driven into a busy street market in Ürümqi, the capital of Xinjiang. Up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers from the windows of the SUVs. The SUVs crashed into shoppers, then collided with each other and exploded. 43 people were killed and more than 90 wounded.
• Kunming train station attack (2014): A group of 8 knife-wielding Uyghur separatists attacked passengers in the Kunming Railway Station in Kunming, Yunnan, China, killing 31 people, and wounding 143 others. The attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers at random.
• Tiananmen Square attack (2013): A car ran over pedestrians and crashed in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, in a terrorist suicide attack. Five people died in the incident; three inside the vehicle and two others nearby. An additional 38 people were injured.
• Kashgar attack (2013): A group of Uyghur militants attacked a police station and government offices in Kashgar, killing 15 people and injuring more than 40 others.
• Kashgar attack (2011): Two Uyghur men hijacked a truck, killed its driver, and drove into a crowd of pedestrians. They got out of the truck and stabbed six people to death and injured 27 others.
• Ürümqi riots (2009): Ethnic riots erupted in Ürümqi. They began as a protest, but escalated into violent attacks that mainly targeted Han people. A total of 197 people died, most of whom were Han people or non-Muslim minorities, with 1,721 others injured and many vehicles and buildings destroyed.
• Kashgar attack (2008): Two men drove a truck into a group of approximately 70 jogging police officers, and proceeded to attack them with grenades and machetes, resulting in the death of sixteen officers.

In 2014-2016, the Chinese government launched a "Strike Hard" campaign to crack down on terrorism in Xinjiang, implementing strict security measures and detaining thousands of Uyghurs. In 2017, reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang including mass detentions and forced labor, began to emerge.

The Material Conditions Necessary for Terrorism and Extremism

As materialists, we understand that terrorists don't magically appear out of thin air. There are material reasons for people resorting to such extreme measures. In order to combat the threat of rising extremism, these reasons must be indentified and resolved. One of the main causes is economic marginalization. When people are economically disadvantaged or excluded from mainstream economic activity, they may be more likely to turn to extremism as a way to address their grievances and gain a sense of purpose. Generally speaking, people who feel like they have a bright future do not resort to terrorism. It is only when people feel hopeless or trapped that they resort to such measures.

If the issue is that the Uyghurs were disenfranchised, and that is the reason they were susceptible to religious fundamentalism and resorting to terrorism, then surely the solution is to enfranchise them to remove that material condition. This is what the Strike Hard campaign ultimately sought to accomplish.

Counterpoints

There is only flimsy evidence for the most egregious of the allegations being made about what China is doing in Xinjiang, it should be an easy matter to dismiss. Normally, the burden of evidence lies with the party making the claims. However, Western media is happy to spread rumours and present the allegations as having merit because it serves America's imperialist interests. Additionally, given the severity of the allegations and the gravity of the crimes China is being accused of, this issue has been taken very seriously by the international community, especially the international Muslim community.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The OIC released Resolutions on Muslim Communities and Muslim Minorities in the non-OIC Member States in 2019 which:

> 1. Welcomes the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat's delegation upon invitation from the People's Republic of China; commends the efforts of the People's Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and looks forward to further cooperation between the OIC and the People's Republic of China.

In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on.

Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter (A/HRC/41/G/17) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang:

> ...separatism and religious extremism has caused enormous damage to people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, which has seriously infringed upon human rights, including right to life, health and development. Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang, including setting up vocational education and training centers. Now safety and security has returned to Xinjiang and the fundamental human rights of people of all ethnic groups there are safeguarded. The past three consecutive years has seen not a single terrorist attack in Xinjiang and people there enjoy a stronger sense of happiness, fulfillment and security. We note with appreciation that human rights are respected and protected in China in the process of counter-terrorism and deradicalization. > > We appreciate China’s commitment to openness and transparency. China has invited a number of diplomats, international organizations officials and journalist to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of counter-terrorism and deradicalization there. What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the media. We call on relevant countries to refrain from employing unfounded charges against China based on unconfirmed information before they visit Xinjiang.

The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, "The review did not substantiate the allegations." (See: World Bank Statement on Review of Project in Xinjiang, China)

Even if you believe the deradicalization efforts are wholly unjustified, and that the mass detention of Uyghur's amounts to a crime against humanity, it's still not genocide. Even the U.S. State Department's legal experts admit as much:

> The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials. > > State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China | Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy. (2021)

A Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror

China is not the only country to have faced faced a challenge of this nature. The United States, in the wake of "9/11", saw the threat of terrorism and violent extremism due to religious fundamentalism as a matter of national security. They invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, with the goal of ousting the Taliban government that was harbouring Al-Qaeda. The US also launched the Iraq War in March 2003, which was justified by the Bush administration as a response to Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. However, these claims turned out to be unfounded.

> A former commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, [retired General Wesley] Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan... > > Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, “even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever”... > > He also condemns George Bush’s notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. “There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,” says Clark... > > Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls “the real sources of terrorists – US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia”. > > Clark blames Egypt’s “repressive policies”, Pakistan’s “corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia’s “radical ideology and direct funding” for creating a pool of angry young men who became “terrorists”. > > US ‘plans to attack seven Muslim states’ | Al Jazeera (2003)

According to a report by Brown University's Costs of War project, at least 897,000 people, including civilians, militants, and security forces, have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Other estimates place the total number of deaths at over one million. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. The war has also resulted in the displacement of tens of millions of people, with estimates ranging from 37 million to over 59 million.

The War on Terror also popularized such novel concepts as the "Military-Aged Male" which allowed the US military to exclude civilians killed by drone strikes from collateral damage statistics. (See: ‘Military Age Males’ in US Drone Strikes)

In summary:

• The U.S. responded by invading or bombing half a dozen countries regardless of their actual connection to the attackers, directly killing nearly a million and displacing tens of millions from their homes.
• China responded with a program of deradicalization and vocational training.

Which one of those responses sounds genocidal?

Side note: It is practically impossible to actually charge the U.S. with war crimes, because of the Hague Invasion Act.

Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative?

Let's review some of the people and organizations involved in strongly promoting this narrative.

One of the main proponents of these narratives is Adrian Zenz, a German far-right fundamentalist Christian and Senior Fellow and Director in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, who believes he is "led by God" on a "mission" against China has driven much of the narrative. His anti-Communist and anti-China stances influence his work and makes him selective in his use of data. He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence. He also ignores the broader historical and political context of the situation in Xinjiang, such as the history of separatist movements and terrorism in the region.

The World Uyghur Congress, headquartered in Germany, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, using funding to support organizations that promote American interests rather than the interests of the local communities they claim to represent.

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism in Asia, one that seeks to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the region. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, RFA is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, one that seeks to shape the narrative in Asia in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies.

The first country to call the treatment of Uyghurs a genocide was the United States of America. In 2021, the Secretary of State declared that China's treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang constitutes "genocide" and "crimes against humanity." Both the Trump and Biden administrations upheld this line.

Why is this narrative being promoted?

As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. In this case, there is a compelling material reason for the US the promote a narrative of a genocide occurring in Xinjiang.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. The project has been described as a new Silk Road, connecting China with its neighboring countries and expanding trade and economic ties with the rest of the world.

The BRI includes plans for major infrastructure projects in Xinjiang. These projects aim to improve connectivity and facilitate trade between China and countries in Central Asia and beyond. The Xinjiang region is critical part of the Belt.

For the United States, the BRI is a threat to its economic and political dominance. For one, the BRI could undermine US efforts to promote "free trade" agreements, which have often been used to lock in economic reforms and policies that benefit American corporations. The BRI also threatens to undermine US influence in key regions of the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, by providing countries with an alternative source of financing and investment that is not tied to US-led institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Moreover, the BRI could help to shift the global balance of power away from the United States and towards China. By expanding its economic influence and deepening its ties with other countries, China could emerge as a more formidable competitor to the United States in the global arena.

Promoting the Uyghur genocide narrative harms China and benefits the US in several ways. It portrays China as a human rights violator which could damage China's reputation in the international community and which could lead to economic sanctions against China; this would harm China's economy and give American an economic advantage in competing with China. It could also lead to more protests and violence in Xinjiang, which could further destabilize the region and threaten the longterm success of the BRI.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• What's daily life like for Uyghurs? A talk with Uyghur influencer Sabira Samat and Daniel Dumbrill. | Li Jingjing (2021)
• Cutting Through the BS on Xinjiang: Uyghur Genocide or Vocational Training? | BadEmpanada (2021)
• Discussing The Xinjiang/Uyghur "Genocide" With Bay Area 415 | Daniel Dumbrill (2020)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Egyptian media delegates provide a detailed insight of the situation in Xinjiang | (2019)
• The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz | Nia Frome (2021)
• Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation | Qiao Collective (2021)
• Xinjiang: Understanding Complexity, Building Peace | International Diplomatic Institute (2021)
• Fight against Terrorism and Extremism in Xinjiang: Truth and Facts | Information Office of the People's Government of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (2022)

Social Media Resources, Threads, and Masterposts:

• Twitter thread about the WUC | shaedon sharpe’s rifles via Twitter (2021) Archive
• List of fact checks | 8Bitsblu via r/communism (2020) Archive
• r/Sino wiki entry | FeatsOverComments via r/sino (2020)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Holodomor

> Marxists do not deny that a famine happened in the Soviet Union in 1932. In fact, even the Soviet archive confirms this. What we do contest is the idea that this famine was man-made or that there was a genocide against the Ukrainian people. This idea of the subjugation of the Soviet Union’s own people was developed by Nazi Germany, in order to show the world the terror of the “Jewish communists.” > > — Socialist Musings. (2017). Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor

There have been efforts by anti-Communists and Ukrainian nationalists to frame the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 as "The Holodomor" (lit. "to kill by starvation" in Ukrainian). Framing it this way serves two purposes:

1. It implies the famine targeted Ukraine.
2. It implies the famine was intentional.

The argument goes that because it was intentional and because it mainly targeted Ukraine that it was, therefore, an act of genocide. This framing was originally used by Nazis to drive a wedge between the Ukrainian SSR (UkSSR) and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). In the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution, this narrative has regained popularity and serves the nationalistic goal of strengthening Ukrainian identity and asserting the country's independence from Russia.

First Issue

The first issue is that the famine affected the majority of the USSR, not just the UkSSR. Kazakhstan was hit harder (per capita) than Ukraine. Russia itself was also severely affected.

The emergence of the Holodomor in the 1980s as a historical narrative was bound-up with post-Soviet Ukrainian nation-making that cannot be neatly separated from the legacy of Eastern European antisemitism, or what Historian Peter Novick calls "Holocaust Envy", the desire for victimized groups to enshrine their "own" Holocaust or Holocaust-like event in the historical record. For many Nationalists, this has entailed minimizing the Holocaust to elevate their own experiences of historical victimization as the supreme atrocity. The Ukrainian scholar Lubomyr Luciuk exemplified this view in his notorious remark that the Holodomor was "a crime against humanity arguably without parallel in European history."

Second Issue

Calling it "man-made" implies that it was a deliberate famine, which was not the case. Although human factors set the stage, the main causes of the famine was bad weather and crop disease, resulting in a poor harvest, which pushed the USSR over the edge.

Kulaks ("tight-fisted person") were a class of wealthy peasants who owned land, livestock, and tools. The kulaks had been a thorn in the side of the peasantry long before the revolution. Alexey Sergeyevich Yermolov, Minister of Agriculture and State Properties of the Russian Empire, in his 1892 book, Poor harvest and national suffering, characterized them as usurers, sucking the blood of Russian peasants.

In the early 1930s, in response to the Soviet collectivization policies (which sought to confiscate their property), many kulaks responded spitefully by burning crops, killing livestock, and damaging machinery.

Poor communication between different levels of government and between urban and rural areas, also contributed to the severity of the crisis.

Quota Reduction

What really contradicts the genocide argument is that the Soviets did take action to mitigate the effects of the famine once they became aware of the situation:

> The low 1932 harvest worsened severe food shortages already widespread in the Soviet Union at least since 1931 and, despite sharply reduced grain exports, made famine likely if not inevitable in 1933. > > The official 1932 figures do not unambiguously support the genocide interpretation... the 1932 grain procurement quota, and the amount of grain actually collected, were both much smaller than those of any other year in the 1930s. The Central Committee lowered the planned procurement quota in a 6 May 1932 decree... [which] actually reduced the procurement plan 30 percent. Subsequent decrees also reduced the procurement quotas for most other agricultural products... > > Proponents of the genocide argument, however, have minimized or even misconstrued this decree. Mace, for example, describes it as "largely bogus" and ignores not only the extent to which it lowered the procurement quotas but also the fact that even the lowered plan was not fulfilled. Conquest does not mention the decree's reduction of procurement quotas and asserts Ukrainian officials' appeals led to the reduction of the Ukranian grain procurement quota at the Third All-Ukraine Party Conference in July 1932. In fact that conference confirmed the quota set in the 6 May Decree. > > — Mark Tauger. (1992). The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933

Rapid Industrialization

The famine was exacerbated directly and indirectly by collectivization and rapid industrialization. However, if these policies had not been enacted, there could have been even more devastating consequences later.

In 1931, during a speech delivered at the first All-Union Conference of Leading Personnel of Socialist Industry, Stalin said, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under."

In 1941, exactly ten years later, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.

By this time, the Soviet Union's industrialization program had lead to the development of a large and powerful industrial base, which was essential to the Soviet war effort. This allowed the USSR to produce large quantities of armaments, vehicles, and other military equipment, which was crucial in the fight against Nazi Germany.

In Hitler's own words:

> In 1941: > Hitler exclaimed in exasperation, ‘How can such a primitive people manage such technical achievements in such a short time!’ > > — David Irving. (2001) Hitler's War and the War Path

> In 1942: > All in all, one has to say: They built factories here where two years ago there were unknown farming villages, factories the size of the Hermann-Göring-Werke. They have railroads that aren't even marked on the map. > > — Werner Jochmann. (1980). Adolf Hitler. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.

Collectivization also created critical resiliency among the civilian population:

> The experts were especially surprised by the Red Army’s up-to-date equipment. Great tank battles were reported; it was noted that the Russians had sturdy tanks which often smashed or overturned German tanks in head-on collision. “How does it happen,” a New York editor asked me, “that those Russian peasants, who couldn’t run a tractor if you gave them one, but left them rusting in the field, now appear with thousands of tanks efficiently handled?” I told him it was the Five-Year Plan. But the world was startled when Moscow admitted its losses after nine weeks of war as including 7,500 guns, 4,500 planes and 5,000 tanks. An army that could still fight after such losses must have had the biggest or second biggest supply in the world. > > As the war progressed, military observers declared that the Russians had “solved the blitzkrieg,” the tactic on which Hitler relied. This German method involved penetrating the opposing line by an overwhelming blow of tanks and planes, followed by the fanning out of armored columns in the “soft” civilian rear, thus depriving the front of its hinterland support. This had quickly conquered every country against which it had been tried. “Human flesh cannot withstand it,” an American correspondent told me in Berlin. Russians met it by two methods, both requiring superb morale. When the German tanks broke through, Russian infantry formed again between the tanks and their supporting German infantry. This created a chaotic front, where both Germans and Russians were fighting in all directions. The Russians could count on the help of the population. The Germans found no “soft, civilian rear.” They found collective farmers, organized as guerrillas, coordinated with the regular Russian army. > > — Anna Louise Strong. (1956). The Stalin Era

Conclusion

While there may have been more that the Soviets could have done to reduce the impact of the famine, there is no evidence of intent-- ethnic, or otherwise. Therefore, one must conclude that the famine was a tragedy, not a genocide.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Soviet Famine of 1932: An Overview | The Marxist Project (2020)
• Did Stalin Continue to Export Grain as Ukraine Starved? | Hakim (2017) [Archive]
• The Holodomor Genocide Question: How Wikipedia Lies to You | Bad Empanada (2022)
• Historian Admits USSR didn't kill tens of millions! | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018) (Note: Holodomor discussion begins at the 9 minute mark)
• A Case-Study of Capitalism - Ukraine | Hakim (2017) [Archive] (Note: Only tangentially mentions the famine.)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 | Davies and Wheatcroft (2004)
• The “Holodomor” explained | TheFinnishBolshevik (2020)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Anti-Communists and horseshoe-theorists love to tell anyone who will listen that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) was a military alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They frame it as a cynical and opportunistic agreement between two totalitarian powers that paved the way for the outbreak of World War II in order to equate Communism with Fascism. They are, of course, missing key context.

German Background

The loss of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles had a profound effect on the German economy. Signed in 1919, the treaty imposed harsh reparations on the newly formed Weimar Republic (1919-1933), forcing the country to pay billions of dollars in damages to the Allied powers. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, required Germany to cede all of its colonial possessions to the Allied powers. This included territories in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, including German East Africa, German Southwest Africa, Togoland, Cameroon, and German New Guinea.

With an understanding of Historical Materialism and the role that Imperialism plays in maintaining a liberal democracy, it is clear that the National Bourgeoisie would embrace Fascism under these conditions. (Ask: "What is Imperialism?" and "What is Fascism?" for details)

Judeo-Bolshevism (a conspiracy theory which claimed that Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution of 1917, and that they have used Communism as a cover to further their own interests) gained significant traction in Nazi Germany, where it became a central part of Nazi propaganda and ideology. Adolf Hitler and other leading members of the Nazi Party frequently used the term to vilify Jews and justify their persecution.

The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was repressed by the Nazi regime soon after they came to power in 1933. In the weeks following the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis arrested and imprisoned thousands of Communists and other political dissidents. This played a significant role in the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933, which granted Hitler and the Nazi Party dictatorial powers and effectively dismantled the Weimar Republic.

Soviet Background

Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Great Britain and other Western powers placed strict trade restrictions on the Soviet Union. These restrictions were aimed at isolating the Soviet Union and weakening its economy in an attempt to force the new Communist government to collapse.

In the 1920s, the Soviet Union under Lenin's leadership was sympathetic towards Germany because the two countries shared a common enemy in the form of the Western capitalist powers, particularly France and Great Britain. The Soviet Union and Germany established diplomatic relations and engaged in economic cooperation with each other. The Soviet Union provided technical and economic assistance to Germany and in return, it received access to German industrial and technological expertise, as well as trade opportunities.

However, this cooperation was short-lived, and by the late 1920s, relations between the two countries had deteriorated. The Soviet Union's efforts to export its socialist ideology to Germany were met with resistance from the German government and the rising Nazi Party, which viewed Communism as a threat to its own ideology and ambitions.

Collective Security (1933-1939)

> The appointment of Hitler as Germany's chancellor general, as well as the rising threat from Japan, led to important changes in Soviet foreign policy. Oriented toward Germany since the treaty of Locarno (1925) and the treaty of Special Relations with Berlin (1926), the Kremlin now moved in the opposite direction by trying to establish closer ties with France and Britain to isolate the growing Nazi threat. This policy became known as "collective security" and was associated with Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister at the time. The pursuit of collective security lasted approximately as long as he held that position. Japan's war with China took some pressure off of Russia by allowing it to focus its diplomatic efforts on relations with Europe. > > — Andrei P. Tsygankov, (2012). Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin.

However, the memories of the Russian Revolution and the fear of Communism were still fresh in the minds of many Western leaders, and there was a reluctance to enter into an alliance with the Soviet Union. They believed that Hitler was a bulwark against Communism and that a strong Germany could act as a buffer against Soviet expansion.

Instead of joining the USSR in a collective security alliance against Nazi Germany, the Western leaders decided to try appeasing Nazi Germany. As part of the policy of appeasement, several territories were ceded to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s:

1. Rhineland: In March 1936, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone along the border between Germany and France. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and marked the beginning of Nazi Germany's aggressive territorial expansion.
2. Austria: In March 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria in what is known as the Anschluss. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which had established Austria as a separate state following World War I.
3. Sudetenland: In September 1938, the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a region in western Czechoslovakia with a large ethnic German population.
4. Memel: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed the Memel region of Lithuania, which had been under French administration since World War I.
5. Bohemia and Moravia: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed Bohemia and Moravia, the remaining parts of Czechoslovakia that had not been annexed following the Munich Agreement.

However, instead of appeasing Nazi Germany by giving in to their territorial demands, these concessions only emboldened them and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

> Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. > > Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history... > > The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939. > > The new documents... show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome. > > But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer... > > — Nick Holdsworth. (2008). Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

After trying and failing to get the Western capitalist powers to join the Soviet Union in a collective security alliance against Nazi Germany, and witnessing country after country being ceded, it became clear to Soviet leadership that war was inevitable-- and Poland was next.

Unfortunately, there was a widespread belief in Poland that Jews were overrepresented in the Soviet government and that the Soviet Union was being controlled by Jewish Communists. This conspiracy theory (Judeo-Bolshevism) was fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda that was prevalent in Poland at the time. The Polish government was strongly anti-Communist and had been actively involved in suppressing Communist movements in Poland and other parts of Europe. Furthermore, the Polish government believed that it could rely on the support of Britain and France in the event of a conflict with Nazi Germany. The Polish government had signed a mutual defense pact with Britain in March 1939, and believed that this would deter Germany from attacking Poland.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the Soviet Union made the difficult decision to do what it felt it needed to do to survive the coming conflict. At the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's signing (August 1939), the Soviet Union was facing significant military pressure from the West, particularly from Britain and France, which were seeking to isolate the Soviet Union and undermine its influence in Europe. The Soviet Union saw the Pact as a way to counterbalance this pressure and to gain more time to build up its military strength and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Nazi Germany, which began less than two years later in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa).

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• How Stalin Outplayed Hitler: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact | Politstrum International (2020)
• The truth about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (Visualization) | Russia Good (2019)
• Soviet Nonaggression-Pact / The Soviet Perspective | Lady Idzihar (2022)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• The Truth About The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact | Politsturm
• End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939 | Michael Jabara Carley (1993)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Gulag

According to Anti-Communists and Russophobes, the Gulag was a brutal network of work camps established in the Soviet Union under Stalin's ruthless regime. They claim the Gulag system was primarily used to imprison and exploit political dissidents, suspected enemies of the state, and other people deemed "undesirable" by the Soviet government. They claim that prisoners were sent to the Gulag without trial or due process, and that they were subjected to harsh living conditions, forced labour, and starvation, among other things. According to them, the Gulags were emblematic of Stalinist repression and totalitarianism.

Origins of the Mythology

This comically evil understanding of the Soviet prison system is based off only a handful of unreliable sources.

Robert Conquest's The Great Terror (published 1968) laid the groundwork for Soviet fearmongering, and was based largely off of defector testimony.

Robert Conquest worked for the British Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), which was a secret Cold War propaganda department, created to publish anti-communist propaganda, including black propaganda; provide support and information to anti-communist politicians, academics, and writers; and to use weaponised information and disinformation and "fake news" to attack not only its original targets but also certain socialists and anti-colonial movements.

> He was Solzhenytsin before Solzhenytsin, in the phrase of Timothy Garton Ash. > > The Great Terror came out in 1968, four years before the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago, and it became, Garton Ash says, "a fixture in the political imagination of anybody thinking about communism". > > — Andrew Brown. (2003). Scourge and poet

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelag" (published 1973), one of the most famous texts on the subject, claims to be a work of non-fiction based on the author's personal experiences in the Soviet prison system. However, Solzhenitsyn was merely an anti-Communist, N@zi-sympathizing, antisemite who wanted to slander the USSR by putting forward a collection of folktales as truth. Read more

Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A history (published 2003) draws directly from The Gulag Archipelago and reiterates its message. Anne is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two infamous pieces of the ideological apparatus of the ruling class in the United States, whose primary aim is to promote the interests of American Imperialism around the world.

Counterpoints

> A 1957 CIA document [which was declassified in 2010] titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six: > > 1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas > 2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon "economic accountability" such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid. > 3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day. > 4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners' food supplies. > 5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day. > 6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals. > 7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the "ordinary criminals" of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes. > > — Saed Teymuri. (2018). The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA

Scale

Solzhenitsyn estimated that over 66 million people were victims of the Soviet Union's forced labor camp system over the course of its existence from 1918 to 1956. With the collapse of the USSR and the opening of the Soviet archives, researchers can now access actual archival evidence to prove or disprove these claims. Predictably, it turned out the propaganda was just that.

> Unburdened by any documentation, these “estimates” invite us to conclude that the sum total of people incarcerated in the labor camps over a twenty-two year period (allowing for turnovers due to death and term expirations) would have constituted an astonishing portion of the Soviet population. The support and supervision of the gulag (all the labor camps, labor colonies, and prisons of the Soviet system) would have been the USSR’s single largest enterprise. > > In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. ... > > Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the N@zis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as “the largest system of death camps in modern history.” ... > > Most of those incarcerated in the gulag were not political prisoners, and the same appears to be true of inmates in the other communist states... > > — Michael Parenti. (1997). Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

This is 2 million out of a population of 168 million (roughly 1.2% of the population). For comparison, in the United States, "over 5.5 million adults — or 1 in 61 — are under some form of correctional control, whether incarcerated or under community supervision." That's 1.6%. So in both relative and absolute terms, the United States' Prison Industrial Complex today is larger than the USSR's Gulag system at its peak.

Death Rate

In peace time, the mortality rate of the Gulag was around 3% to 5%. Even Conservative and anti-Communist historians have had to acknowledge this reality:

> It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive... > > Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hit1er were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. > > — Timothy Snyder. (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hit1er and Stalin

(Side note: Timothy Snyder is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations)

This is still very high for a prison mortality rate, representing the brutality of the camps. However, it also clearly indicates that they were not death camps.

Nor was it slave labour, exactly. In the camps, although labour was forced, it was not uncompensated. In fact, the prisoners were paid market wages (less expenses).

> We find that even in the Gulag, where force could be most conveniently applied, camp administrators combined material incentives with overt coercion, and, as time passed, they placed more weight on motivation. By the time the Gulag system was abandoned as a major instrument of Soviet industrial policy, the primary distinction between slave and free labor had been blurred: Gulag inmates were being paid wages according to a system that mirrored that of the civilian economy described by Bergson.... > > The Gulag administration [also] used a “work credit” system, whereby sentences were reduced (by two days or more for every day the norm was overfulfilled). > > — L. Borodkin & S. Ertz. (2003). Compensation Versus Coercion in the Soviet GULAG

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• The Gulag Argument | TheFinnishBolshevik (2016)
• Historian Admits USSR didn't kill tens of millions! | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018)
• French work camps 1852-1953 worse than gulag | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018)
• "The Gulags of the Soviet Union: There's a Lot More Than What Meets the Eye | Comrade Rhys (2020)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence | J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn and Viktor N. Zemskov (1993)

Listen:

• "Blackshirts & Reds" (1997) by Michael Parenti, Part 4: Chapters 5 & 6. \#Audiobook + Discussion. | Socialism For All / S4A ☭ Intensify Class Struggle (2022)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Freedom of the Press

> “Freedom of the press” in bourgeois society means freedom for the rich systematically, unremittingly, daily, in millions of copies, to deceive, corrupt and fool the exploited and oppressed mass of the people, the poor. > > — V. I. Lenin. (1917). How to Guarantee the Success of the Constituent Assembly

Anti-Communists criticize a lack of "freedom of the press" in societies run by Communist governments. They claim that the government suppresses dissenting voices and controls the media in order to maintain its power, and that this leads to a lack of transparency and accountability, as well as the suppression of free speech and the ability of individuals to express their opinions and hold those in power accountable. They also argue that state control of the media leads to censorship which prevents citizens from accessing unbiased information and making informed decisions. This critique is often used to argue against Communism and in favor of Capitalism. In this light, Capitalist societies are believed to offer greater freedom of the press and personal expression.

These are all important concerns which ought to be taken seriously. The problem is that these concerns are not specific to Communism; Capitalist societies, as a result of the profit-motive and the accumulation of wealth, suffer from all these same issues.

Media Concentration

> There can be no such thing as freedom of the press, except for the owners and editors of newspapers, while capitalism lasts. > > — Arthur Cowell

Do you own a news station? A newspaper? Then what "freedom of the press" do you really have?

> A deep analysis of America’s top 100 news sites reveals key shareholders, parent companies, and commonalities. > > About 15 billionaires and six corporations own most of the U.S. media outlets. The biggest media conglomerates in America are AT&T, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, National Amusements (which includes Viacom Inc. and CBS), News Corp and Fox Corporation (which are both owned in part by the Murdochs), Sony, and Hearst Communications. > > — Who Owns Your News? The Top 100 Digital News Outlets and Their Ownership

With this kind of concentration, the select few who actually own these media outlets have an unparalleled ability to set the narrative and promote their own interests. Sinclair Broadcast Group, for example, owns hundreds of local TV news stations. The most infamous example of them using this network to spread an agenda was this unsettling video: Sinclair's Soldiers in Trump's War on Media.

This issue affects movies and television producers as well: Here’s who owns everything in Big Media today

Obvious Bias

> All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. > > — V. I. Lenin. (1921). A Letter To G. Myasnikov

In Capitalist societies, the concept of "freedom of the press" is a misleading and deceptive notion. While the ruling class promotes the idea of a free press as a fundamental right, the reality is that the press is owned and controlled by a small group of billionaires who use it to advance their own interests.

Under Capitalism, the media is a profit-driven industry that is dependent on advertising revenue to survive. As a result, the media serves the interests of the capitalist class by promoting their ideology and suppressing dissenting voices. This is evident in the way that news stories are framed and presented, with an emphasis on sensationalism, celebrity gossip, and consumerism, rather than on issues that affect working-class people.

The Capitalist media is not a neutral observer of society, but an active participant in the class struggle by hyper-focusing on culture war non-issues such as the endless debate about manufactured controversies such as trans women in sports, an issue which does not affect the vast majority of people. This ragebait distracts from real issues that affect the working class. The media is constantly scapegoating some minority group with sensationalized ragebait narratives such as the "Welfare Queen" or "illegal immigrants".

The owners and editors of media outlets use their power to set the narrative, which shapes public opinion and influences government policy, to serve their own interests. This is why it is essential for the working class to build its own media institutions that are independent of Capitalist influence.

> The general deal is that Marvel gets to use real military hardware, film on military bases, and hire real soldiers as extras, while the Department of Defense gets to approve the final script of the film. In other words, Marvel gets tons of stuff to make production easier and cheaper, while the military gets to edit out anything that doesn't make them look good. > > Even the movies that don't have a direct marketing connection to the US military have a noticeable bias towards it. Consider Black Panther, a movie about the monarch of an advanced African nation. The one prominent white character in that film is Everett K. Ross, a CIA agent who aids T'Challa in overthrowing Killmonger. The CIA has a long history of overthrowing regimes, but, in this film, an agent of the organization that put Pinochet in charge of Chile aids in a coup for good. This may not be the intention of the film, but the CIA sure appreciated it. The agency promoted the film heavily on social media, allowing it to glom onto a project that was seen as a great leap forward for representation and a masterful blockbuster film. > > — The Marvel Military Propaganda Criticism, Explained | GameRant (2022)

The bottom line is that there is nothing "free" about the press in Capitalist society. For those who have the means, being able to control the media is an incredibly powerful tool for shaping public opinion. We need a truly free and democratic press, but that will never be possible under Capitalism.

Censorship

The corporate media in the US practices self-censorship by limiting the range of acceptable opinions and perspectives that can be expressed in their reporting. This is done to maintain a narrow range of political debate that is acceptable to the ruling class and to ensure that the interests of the Capitalist class are not threatened.

During red scare period of the 1950s, the government was cracking down on leftist and progressive organizations, accusing them of being communist sympathizers or agents. Many journalists and media outlets were investigated and harassed for their supposed left-wing leanings by the the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which led to a climate of fear and self-censorship in the media.

As a result, many media outlets and journalists began to avoid covering or promoting progressive or leftist ideas in their reporting. This trend has continued to the present day, with mainstream media outlets often avoiding critical coverage of US foreign policy, imperialism, and corporate power, and instead promoting a narrow range of views that are acceptable to the ruling class.

Similarly, Operation Mockingbird began in the early years of the Cold War to recruit journalists to manipulate domestic American news media organizations for propaganda purposes. The US government also operates a few explicit propaganda networks such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and more in order to export America's ideology internationally, particularly in regions where Communism is popular. In particular, RFE/RL was meant to counter the USSR and RFA was meant to counter the PRC. Organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fund activities which promote America's interests.

How could we do better?

First, we could ensure that the media is owned and controlled by the working class. This would allow the media to operate in the interests of the people rather than in the interests of profit and of promoting bourgeois ideology. We could also ensure that the media is run democratically, with workers having a say in the editorial and managerial decisions.

Second, we could establish strict guidelines for media coverage, ensuring that the media covers events and issues of importance to the people. These guidelines would be developed through democratic participation, with workers, intellectuals, and activists contributing to the decision-making process. We could also establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating media coverage to ensure that it is accurate, objective, and free from bias.

Third, we could promote a culture of critical thinking and media literacy among the population. This would help the people to evaluate media coverage critically and to identify when propaganda is being spread. We could also promote independent media outlets and encourage the development of a vibrant and diverse media landscape.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• You're Not Immune To Propaganda | Second Thought (2023)
• You've Never Had an Original Thought (Media Manipulation and "Freedom" of the Press) | Hakim (2022)
• Why Is US Media Becoming More Right-Wing? | Second Thought (2022)
• Why "Hearing Both Sides" Is Dangerous | Second Thought (2022)
• Who Funds And Controls The Online Right? | Yugopnik (2022)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

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 pejorative 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 | 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).

> [!NOTE] 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! | Luna Oi (2022) > - What did Karl Marx think about democracy? | Luna Oi (2023) > - What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY? | 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 | azureScapegoat (2022)
• John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015

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 necessary 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

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

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

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
• Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder | Hakim (2020) Archive
• What are tankies? (why are they like that?) | Hakim (2023)
• Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse | The Deprogram (2023)
• Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston | Actually Existing Socialism (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism | Michael Parenti (1997)
• State and Revolution | V. I. Lenin (1918)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Revisionism

Revisionism refers to the explicit or implicit attempt at revising the fundamental premises of Marxist theory. Often this is done in attempt to make alliances with the bourgeoisie or to render a working class movement impotent. Explicit revisionism clearly states that Marxism is wrong or outdated and needs to be changed. Implicit revisionism is harder to notice because it claims to still be Marxist, but in actuality puts forward positions that are counter to Marxist theory.

> “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” > > — Karl Marx. (1845) Theses On Feuerbach

Although there is ongoing debate and discussion within Marxist circles about how these principles should be interpreted and applied in specific historical contexts, there are several key tenets that are generally considered to be central to Marxist theory and which are not subject to revision:

1. Dialectical Materialism: The idea that everything is in a state of constant flux, driven by a process of contradictions and conflicts which are an inherent part of the natural and social world.
2. Historical Materialism: The understanding that material conditions and class relations are the driving force behind historical development.
3. Surplus Labor and the Law of Value: The concept that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor that has been expended in producing it. Profits are derived from the surplus value extracted from the worker.

From these fundamental premises follow a series of conclusions, which informs our understanding of the world and teaches us how to affect change. Revisionism alters these fundamental premises or rejects the conclusions that follow from them, the most important of these being the need for revolution.

The events of the Paris Commune and the October Revolution demonstrated the role and necessity of revolution, and provided important lessons in establishing and defending a revolutionary movement. Revolution is not just a means of seizing political power, but of fundamentally transforming society and creating a new social order. Revolutions must be defended against counter-revolutionary forces both from within and without. The movement must be organized and disciplined, and must be able to defend itself against attacks from reactionary forces.

> Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Right Opportunism

> Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack ‘dogmatism’. But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people’s democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction. After the basic victory of the socialist revolution in our country, there are still a number of people who vainly hope to restore the capitalist system and fight the working class on every front, including the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists. > > — Mao Zedong. (1957). On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People

Right opportunism is a political tendency that seeks to make concessions to the bourgeois ruling class in order to maintain or achieve political power. This tendency is often associated with a lack of commitment to revolutionary change and a willingness to compromise on fundamental principles in order to realize short-term gains. Right opportunists may advocate for policies that are not in the long-term interest of the working class, such as supporting capitalist reforms or forming alliances with capitalist parties. This can lead to a weakening of the revolutionary potential of the working class and a failure to achieve real social change. Right opportunism is seen as a deviation from the Marxist principle of class struggle and a betrayal of the interests of the working class.

Trade Unionism is an example of right opportunism as unions focus on limited concessions, rather than advocating for the long-term interests of the working class as a whole. They negotiate with employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions for their members, but do not challenge the fundamental power relations between labour and capital. Union bosses make compromises or alliances with capitalist parties in order to achieve these concessions.

This creates a privileged layer of the working class who are more interested in defending their own privileges than in fighting for the liberation of the working class as a whole. This labour aristocracy is a barrier to the development of revolutionary consciousness among the working class because it prefers the status quo to radical political movements that seek to overthrow it.

Case Study #1: Social Democracy

One of the first revisionists was Eduard Bernstein, a leading theorist and prominent member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), who argued that the gradual extension of social welfare programs and the reform of capitalist institutions could lead to a peaceful transition to socialism, without the need for a violent revolution. This was in sharp contrast to the German Communist Party (KPD). There are two historical events which underscore this fundamental divide:

1. The Spartacist Uprising: Rosa Luxemburg was a prominent Marxist theorist and leader of the left-wing revolutionary movement in Germany. She was a fierce critic of the SPD's moderate reformist politics and its decision to support Germany's involvement in World War I. In January 1919, following the collapse of the German monarchy, a left-wing revolutionary movement emerged in Berlin, and Luxemburg played a leading role in the movement. The movement challenged the authority of the new Social Democratic-led government and sought to establish a socialist republic. On January 15, 1919, the SPD government ordered the army and the Freikorps, a right-wing paramilitary group, to suppress the revolutionary movement. Luxemburg and her comrade Karl Liebknecht were arrested, beaten, and executed by the Freikorps.
2. The Enabling Act: The Nazis rose to absolute power in 1933 with the passing of the Enabling Act. The KPD were absent from the vote because the party had been banned and its members imprisoned or in hiding. The SPD were present and voted against it. The SPD was subsequently banned and many of its members were arrested, tortured, and killed by the Nazis, while others were forced into exile or went into hiding.

Case Study #2: Democratic Socialism

Salvador Allende was a socialist politician who was elected president of Chile in 1970, becoming the first Marxist to be elected to the presidency in a liberal democracy. In power, he pursued a program of radical reform, including the nationalization of key industries, the redistribution of land, and the expansion of social welfare programs. His government was supported by a coalition of left-wing parties, including the Chilean Communist Party, and was seen as a model for peaceful democratic socialist transition. However, Allende's reforms faced opposition from powerful domestic and international forces, including right-wing politicians, the military, and the United States government. In 1973, Allende's government was overthrown in a US-backed military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet, who established a brutal Fascist dictatorship that lasted for years.

In "The State and Revolution", Lenin explained why the capitalist state could not be reformed or co-opted for the purposes of Socialism, but had to be destroyed and replaced by a new proletarian state. Allende's failure to apprehend this lesson proved fatal. His reliance on the existing bourgeois state apparatus as well as his failure to implement more radical measures, such as the establishment of workers' councils or the arming of the proletariat, left him vulnerable to counterrevolutionary forces.​

> “If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.” > > — George Carlin

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Why Social Democracy Isn't Good Enough | Second Thought (2023)
• Why Democratic Socialism Isn’t Enough | Marxism Today (2022)
• "The US Doesn't Meddle In Foreign Affairs" | Second Thought (2021)
• Electoralism Always Fails, Now What? | Hakim (2019)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Reform or Revolution | Rosa Luxemburg (1900)
• Marxism and Revisionism | V. I. Lenin (1908)

Podcasts:

• Episode 3 - Reform or Revolution | The Deprogram (2022)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Capitalist Imperialism

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.

Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.

Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.

When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.

Features

Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:

1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.

In Practice

So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.

These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.

Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.

Anti-Imperialism

The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.

It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.

During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism | The Marxist Project (2019)
• What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101 | Marxism Today (2022)
• How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy | Hakim (2020) Archive
• How Capitalism Robs the Developing World | Second Thought (2022)
• 4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism | The Peace Report (2022)
• Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism) | Hakim (2023) Archive
• Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production | The Marxist Project (2022)
• This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You | Hakim (2023)
• The Myth Of Capitalist Peace | Second Thought (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism | V. I. Lenin (1917)
• Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
• The IMF debt trap in Ukraine | Amanda Yee (2023)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Fascism

To understand Fascism, one must first understand Capitalism. There are three primary characteristics of Capitalism:

1. Private ownership of the Means of Production
2. Commodity Production
3. Wage Labour

The essence of the Capitalist mode of production is that someone who owns means of production will hire a wage labourer to work in order to produce commodities to sell for profit. Marxists identify economic classes based on this division. Those who own and hire are the Bourgeoisie. Those who do not own and work are the Proletariat. There is far more nuance than just this, but these are the bare essentials. The principal contradiction of Capitalism is that the Bourgeoisie wants to pay the workers as little as possible for as much work as possible, whereas the Proletariat wants to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible.

Fascism is a form of Capitalist rule in which the Bourgeoisie use open, violent terror against the Proletariat. It is an ideology which emerges as a response to the inevitable crises of capitalism and the rise of socialist movements. It is characterized by all forms of chauvinism (especially racism, occasionally leading to genocide), nationalism, anti-Communism, and the suppression of democratic rights and freedoms. In a Capitalist society, Liberalism and Fascism essentially exist on a spectrum. The degree to which a given society if Fascist directly corresponds to the degree to which the proletariat must be openly oppressed in order to maintain profits for the Bourgeoisie. This why we have the sayings: "Fascism is Capitalism in decay" and "Scratch a Liberal, and a Fascist bleeds"

Capitalism requires infinite growth in a finite system. This inevitably leads to Capitalist Imperialism as well as Fascism, given that infinite growth is not actually possible. When the capitalist economy reaches its limits, the Bourgeoisie are forced to either expand their markets into other territories (Imperialism) or exploit the domestic proletariat to an even greater degree (Fascism). This is why we have the saying: "Fascism is imperialist repression turned inward"

The struggle against fascism is an essential part of the struggle for socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people. However, it is critical to note that simply combatting Fascism alone without also combatting Liberalism is reactionary, because it ignores the fact that Fascism inevitably arises out of Capitalism, so Liberal Anti-Fascism is not really anti-Fascism at all.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• Were The Nazis Socialist? | Second Thought (2022)
• Capitalism and Fascism | Marxism Literature Collective (2021)
• Fascism: The Decay of Capitalism | Leslie Fluette (2020)
• The New F Word: How Fascism Found a Market | Second Thought (2021-2023)
• What Exactly is Liberalism? (no, it's not about being "woke") | Hakim (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• The Struggle Against Fascism | Clara Zetkin (1923)
• Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism | Michael Parenti (1997)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

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 unfreedom?

> 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

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

All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie:

> The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > > — A. Gramsci. (1924). Democracy and fascism

But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person?

> The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > > — Maurice Bishop

Under Communism

True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled.

Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in more freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed.

> Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > > There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > > Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > > U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > > Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > > — Michael Parenti. (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class:

> But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > > Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > > — J. V. Stalin. (1936). Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard

Additional Resources

Videos:

• Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why: | halim alrah (2019)
• Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism? | Second Thought (2020)
• Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals | Second Thought (2021)
• Why The US Is Not A Democracy | Second Thought (2022)
• America Never Stood For Freedom | Hakim (2023)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Positive and Negative Liberty | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003)

%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%

Read

Introduction

• The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism | V. I. Lenin (1913)
• Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism | V. I. Lenin (1914)
• The Principles of Communism | F. Engels (1847)
• Manifesto of the Communist Party | K. Marx, F. Engels (1848)
• Why Socialism? | A. Einstein (1949)

Historical Materialism

• The German Ideology, Part 1. A: Idealism and Materialism | K. Marx, F. Engels (1845)
• Dialectical and Historical Materialism | J. V. Stalin (1938)

Scientific Socialism

• Socialism: Utopian and Scientific | F. Engels (1880)
• What Is To Be Done? | V. I. Lenin (1901)
• State and Revolution | V. I. Lenin (1917)
• The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky | V. I. Lenin (1918)
• V. I. Lenin. Texts against revisionism and opportunism:
  • The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx (1913)
  • Opportunism, and the Collapse of the Second International (1915)
  • The Collapse of the Second International (1915)
  • Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916)
  • Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism (1910)
  • Marxism and Revisionism (1908)
  • Marxism and Reformism (1913)
• “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder | V. I. Lenin (1920)
• Anti-Dühring - Part III: Socialism | F. Engels (1877)
• Anarchism Or Socialism? | J. V. Stalin (1906)
• Foundations of Leninism | J. V. Stalin (1924)
• On Practice | Mao Zedong (1937)
• Oppose Book Worship | Mao Zedong (1930)
• Combat Liberalism | Mao Zedong (1937)

Philosophy

• On contradiction | Mao Zedong (1937)
• Anti-Dühring - Part I: Philosophy | F. Engels (1877)
• Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy | F. Engels (1886)
• Theses on Feuerbach | K. Marx (1845)

Political Economy

• Wage Labour and Capital | K. Marx (1847)
• Wages, price and profit | K. Marx (1865)
• Anti-Dühring - Part II: Political Economy | F. Engels (1877)
• Capital Volume I | K. Marx (1867)
• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism | V. I. Lenin (1916)

Watch

• Socialism for Absolute Beginners | Second Thought (2022)
• Why You Should Be A Socialist In 2023 | Second Thought (2023)
• Marxism Today's Socialism 101 Playlist:
  • Why Communism?
  • #1 What is Communism?
  • #2 What is a Mode of Production?
  • #3 The Difference Between Personal and Private Property
  • #4 What is Capitalism?
  • #5 What is Socialism?
  • #6 What is Social Class?
  • #7 What is Marxism?
  • #8 What is Dialectical Materialism?
  • #9 What is Historical Materialism?
  • #10 What is Contradiction?
  • #11 Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism
  • Marx's Law of Value: Intro to Marxist Economics
  • What is Commodity Fetishism?
  • Base and Superstructure: The Marxist Analysis of Society
  • What is Alienation?
• Marxism Today's Socialism 201 Playlist:
  • What is the State?
  • What is a Vanguard Party? ML & MLM Formations
  • What is Capitalist Imperialism?
  • The National Question: Nations & Self-Determination
  • On Women's Emancipation
  • What is Bureaucrat Capitalism? | On Oppressed-Nation Economies
  • How To Know Things
  • How to Criticize Comrades | Constructive Crit and Self-Crit

Listen

• The Deprogram
• Socialism for All / S4A | Foundations of Marxism-Leninism (Basically audiobooks)
• Revolutionary Left Radio
• Red Menace
• Total Liberation

Reddit is removing content from the sub again. How do we make this place more popular?

Keep in mind I'm a mod on the subreddit too, so I can sticky stuff there/change automod rules. But I'm not sure what to sticky/change.

alt text: @yugopnik • Jul 12 There are 2 dudes in a One of them calls himself a Social Democrat. The other calls himself a Communist. Neither of them actually do anything to push their ideas forward. Then, are they any different?

@thedeprogram I’m a baby socialist just getting into the literature and your back episodes. Question though: what would you say we should think of modern socialists like Piketty and Wolff?

I'm talking gladiator style: to the death. Obviously Dick Suckerberg is gonna thwomp Elon, but which two do you think would have a good, close fight? Here's some of my ideas...

Joe Biden (Soul Eater, 80yo, 6') versus Bill Clinton (Painter, 76yo, 6'2)

Clarence Thomas (Lawyer, 75, 5'9) versus Mitch McConnell (Whiner, 81, 5'9)

Ted Cruz (Serial killer, 52, 5'10) versus Hakeem Jefferies (Senator, 52, 5'10)