this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
23 points (96.0% liked)

The Deprogram

1757 readers
145 users here now

"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985


International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.


Rules:

  1. No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
  2. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  3. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
  4. No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
  5. No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
  6. Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.

Resources:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: Damn already so many replies.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

More like 'Westerners when you ask them to do anything'.

Servility in the imperial core is very special. We express it by complaining loudly until someone takes notice, and if they don't, it's their fault for not hearing us. Learned helplessness from centuries of liberalism.

Complaining on the internet about a country that does not even speak your language will not shame them into acting the way you want them to. All it will do is create more anti-communists and give arguments for color revolution. Of which 3 attempts have been made in China in just the past 8 years, and more are brewing.

Like most of his audience is statistically Statesians. He should be telling them ways of organizing shipments for Cuba instead of trying to get a dunk in for the twitter likes. There are routinely convoys that organize shipments to Cuba, mostly food medication and basic goods. Did he post about them? I did.

People like him do this very deliberately. Their hatred of AES outdoes their irritation at US imperialism. I mean what else do you call it when you have all these accounts posting endlessly about China trying to influence public opinion? They never mention that 38% of Cuba's daytime electricity is produced by Chinese-provided solar farms, for example. They want China to do everything everywhere all at once when that is precisely a factor that led to the dismantling of the soviet union.

Some of them are even the same people that will say Cuba was a 'sugar colony' of the USSR.

Beware: going down this path of always finding fault within things you can't act upon will only lead you to ultra-leftism. He's the living proof.

[–] BarrelsBallot@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Well said, I think we really ought to evaluate our own excuses for inaction before looking to the other hemisphere.

To me Empanada's opinion is one that follows the "President Xi, fire when ready" meme.

And I'm not criticizing the meme, but there seems to be this trend amongst us in the western "left" to expect China to swoop in and take care of all our problems in a style akin only to the nostalgic "memories" we've developed of the Soviets.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And I’m not criticizing the meme, but there seems to be this trend amongst us in the western “left” to expect China to swoop in and take care of all our problems in a style akin only to the nostalgic “memories” we’ve developed of the Soviets.

This is an interesting point because the key here is the USSR doesn't exist anymore. And for quite a few of us in these spaces, it probably never existed while we were alive (or not while we were cogent adult beings). The USSR as a world savior simply never existed. As impact beyond itself goes, the USSR made a huge difference in defeating Nazi Germany and being the first to establish a socialist state project, but it also took massive losses in the process of fighting Nazi Germany and was stretched thin from that and its international efforts. Meanwhile, the US was positioned really well after WWII to steamroll over the planet, utilizing pre-existing colonial and imperial tendrils to make it all the easier to do so.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that although the USSR did great things for people, it was still heavily limited by its material conditions. And if it was still around today, it would be getting criticized by ultra-leftists in similar ways to how China is criticized now. Because it wouldn't be making all of the most plainly "moral" decisions, it would not be saving the world but instead acting in a complex way that tries to move the international and local cause of liberation forward, and the western empire propaganda machine would be telling people from day one to despise everything it stands for.

Here the Christian culture that Jones Manoel talks of rears its head again. Now that the USSR is no more, we can freely romanticize what it was, in a form unmarred by complex and uncomfortable realities. We can wallow in the comfort of the idea untouched and untainted by good will having to work within circumstances full of cruelty and neglect. It's reassuring in a way to hide in the purity of the idea, if one believes that acting within a cruel world, rather than rejecting it with the most swift and bridge-burning measures, has an inevitable corrupting influence that destroys otherwise good efforts or damns one (if not the whole world) to depravity.

Likewise with praise of China. It is dangerous (to their comfort) for the purist to sincerely learn about China in detail because the ideal will be shattered in favor of the material realities. The Christian-influenced conclusion will lead to the belief that it has been "corrupted". It is then knocked down from the pedestal that it never asked to be on, where it can be spat upon like a fallen angel who seeks to lead lost souls astray.

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 hour ago

The USSR has made a number of mistakes in foreign policy:

  • wanting to apply their own methods of revolution to China rigidly (both in organization and warfare),
  • urging China to wait for a more opportune moment for revolution,
  • urging the same of DPRK,
  • overly funding communist parties to the point they had no reason to try and find other avenues of funding. When funds stopped, all of these parties almost died and most of them turned eurocommunist to retain dues and membership.
  • pushing of a soviet theoretical line, which had the effect of teaching only one method of revolution/marxist thought.
  • getting pulled into "proxy" conflicts (I don't really like the implications of 'proxy' but I digress), which opened the way for color revolutions to take hold.

As the first successful socialist experiment we could argue, and I do argue that, that it's not like there was a lot of textbooks to pull from. They applied what they knew that worked and everything else was still to be determined, and they did a lot of things right too. Furthermore I also think the world situation around that time was very different; Asia was freeing itself following the defeat of Japan in ww2, there were a number of socialist revolutions all around the same time in the 50s, then in the 60s Africa struggled for independence.

And yet we see that all of this was not enough to defeat the imperial hegemony, so what went wrong? And why repeat the mistakes of the past? We see that it wasn't always correct to 'just' follow the USSR. These mistakes are not entirely the USSR's fault, they're just dialectical. They exist in contradiction and as one element grows the other grows as well. And likewise not everything was of their own making, they were after all constantly under siege from the United States.

Probably nobody thought the USSR would ever be able to be dismantled. And yet it was, and it wreaked havoc in the soviet republics, the DPRK, Cuba. If the PRC were ever to fall, what would remain of world socialism? Are we today in a situation where it would not lead to the post-1991 periods other countries saw? I think so yes, because the PRC has picked a different direction from the USSR in that regard, but I'm presenting the question.

And yet with these mistakes, so to speak, I still support the USSR and would never speak ill of it publicly. My criticisms of their policies are to notice the pothole and mark it clearly so people coming after me can avoid it. Capitalism itself was not established overnight; it took decades of struggle and centuries overall to reach the level it has. Even today there are some countries that have retained their royal family after compromise with the feudal lords.

People like empanada are "neither washington nor beijing" today (he has called China imperialist and 'communist in name only') and would have been "neither washington nor moscow" back in the 60s no matter what they might say they think of the USSR today with hindsight. But where do these words lead new comrades? Imagine just starting to read Marx and your group tells you there is no such thing as a socialist country today and everything sucks, what are you even struggling for at that point? To be right? To flex? To teach newcomers that communism has been thoroughly defeated in the 90s, and we have reached the end of history?

[–] puppygirlpets@hexbear.net 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Like most of his audience is statistically Statesians. He should be telling them ways of organizing shipments for Cuba instead of trying to get a dunk in for the twitter likes. There are routinely convoys that organize shipments to Cuba, mostly food medication and basic goods. Did he post about them? I did.

not to defend the annoying prick but he did in fact do exactly that in a recent video

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 hour ago

that's good of him at least!

[–] BarrelsBallot@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Some really impressive and well written takes in this post, I'm really happy to see the engagement.

[–] iThinkImDumb@hexbear.net 2 points 35 minutes ago

I learn so much from reading these threads. Marxism, history, socioeconomic dialectic analysis, even good prose.

[–] PunkMonk@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

BadEmpanada is 70% acceptable, 30% very questionable takes

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Who was the comrade that coined this line? I love it and I would like to start attributing them when I use it

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I have no idea but it's a certified banger lol

[–] kasama@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago)
[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 23 points 9 hours ago

BadEmpanada wants China to intervene because he wants to stop a genocide.

Posadists want China to intervene because we want nuclear war.

we-are-not-the-same We are not the same.

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (12 children)

Racist fuckers pretty much asking the Chinese to risk death and nuclear WWIII while they are too incompetent to do fuck all in their own countries (^most lenient scenario. actual scenario - they partake in the benefits of imperialism).

It is left-liberals (whatever the fuck they want to call themselves or even decide to drape themselves in sickle and hammer aesthetics or that annoying fucking A) who effectively prevent the underclasses from overthrowing the government of whatever Western country or vassal state they are in (you take your pick of reasons why including socdem apologism), and thereby nullify the option that if the Chinese do decide to risk a hot war that there would be any real chance of material solidarity and not have to then face retribution of whatever fascists and liberals leftover hellbent on revenge.

It is pretty much these "leftists" who prevent any real hope of Chinese intervention.

Put it this way, if so-called communists cannot see the self-evident truths above then what chance is there with rest of them. The only fucking country that has managed to build a socialist fortress and the rest of you all have the gall to fucking lecture.

/rant over

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 9 hours ago

Racist fuckers pretty much asking the Chinese to risk death and nuclear WWIII while they are too incompetent to do fuck all in their own countries (^most lenient scenario. actual scenario - they partake in the benefits of imperialism).

So kind of like this

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Read some history books nerds, Palestine wouldn't even likely still be an alive entity without the historic support China provided. Like the PLO with arms, mediation support and money.

This position has allowed them to exert massive diplomatic force in the present day - look at the 2024 Beijing Declaration.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net 24 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I have plenty of criticism when it comes to China's foreign policy, but BadEmpanada is the last person I'd want to hear it from.

Any valid criticism he may have is completely tarnished by him routinely spreading flat out misinformation on China using US state department talking points like the "Uyghur genocide".

I don't understand how any self-respecting communist and anti-imperialist can still take this guy seriously.

[–] Богданова@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 10 hours ago

He should read: Left-Wing childishness and petty-bourgeoise mentality.

This is precisely the case with our “Left Communists”, who in words (and of course in their deepest convictions) are merciless enemies of the petty bourgeoisie, while in deeds they help only the petty bourgeoisie, serve only this section of the population and express only its point of view by fighting—in April 1918!!—against . . . “state capitalism”. They are wide of the mark!

load more comments
view more: next ›