this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
93 points (98.9% liked)
The Deprogram
1722 readers
153 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:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
- Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.
Resources:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apparently an undisputed Mass party is preferable to a "revisionist" vanguard party when the time of struggle can't produce a disciplined vanguard.
Like I almost see his point, which is that as long as revolutionary practice can't be applied a socialist party's theoretical line will be flawed, and therefore no party is going to have a perfect line so the first step is to bring up class consciousness enough to where an actual vanguard can form.
It's not exactly a perfect argument but again I can see the points that ate being made. There's clearly respectable amounts of thought being put into it. However his obsession with calling out "Dengism" causes that argument to just come off like a pretense to bash China and socialists who support the PRC.
The counter I'd probably say is, "if the material conditions in the US are not capable of producing a vanguard party, then helping any anti-fascist party at the moment is equally valid. Therefore supporting PSL or the greens are compatible measures for a Marxist to take." That's not even getting into the fact that if you need a mass party as a prerequisite to making a vanguard party, then wouldn't it be easier to transform a revisionist but still explicitly revolutionary party into that Mass party?
All around its frankly a strange bone to pick especially considering the circumstances.
To me that just feels like a post-hoc rationalization. You proceed from the position that you don't like modern China and you work backwards to construct an argument that will allow you to justify why a pro-China party should not be supported.
Exactly. For example someone posted in the Deprogram sub at one point about some niche communist party that they'd heard of in the US. I took the time to read their psrty platform and positions and deduced they were a Hoxhaist party. From there I didn't immediately go on to comment how these people should not be supported whatsoever but decided to approach the situation thoughtfully.
Instead I simply stated, they seem to be a Hoxhaist party according to their program but if they are doing good community work and opposing US fascism, then they seem like comrades. I noted my disagreement with their party policy while also acknowledging that what's most important at the current moment is organizing against US fascism, and stated that unless they're in your own company, I'd recommend PSL over them. Both due to their the theoretical line and their national reach.
Petty interdisciplinary squabbles are poison to any Marxist mobilization in the US. The things we should be most critique are practice and how their theories manifest into real action. I do not care if a party denounces China as "revisionist" if they're not going out of their way to demand the US be hostile to the PRC.
💯