Although this was a dogshit troll I loved reading the comments in this thread; I love this community.
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
-9 points (36.4% liked)
The Deprogram Podcast
1613 readers
117 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).
Resources:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Reminds me of people who (from outside "the left") criticize it as squashing individual expression and being cult-like. And then one of the first things I see about any "left" space or org is that there's intense disagreement, if not sectarian splits. Not to say "the left" is unusual in this way. Disagreements and sometimes splits can happen anywhere, regardless of ideology. But it's also not unusually agreeable to each other.
The unifying ML-style position around China, as far as I can tell, goes something like: imperialism is the primary contradiction, not a lack of local communes, and China is heading up an alternative anti-imperialist world order, while also doing an overall good job as a socialist transition state that is by its people and looks after its people.
This doesn't mean China can do no wrong. But much of the time, outside criticisms levied at China are poorly constructed and come from a place of alignment with western imperialist interests, rather than alignment with global liberation. Or they come from a place of essentially wishful thinking, wanting China to be the liberation world police that the US never was but pretended to be, without considering the logistics of what that would mean for China's position in the world, what kind of sacrifice it would require from its people, and the risk it would involve in dealing with an increasingly mask off rabid western empire that still has nukes. None of it's remotely fair and hasn't been since before the inception of the Communist Party of China, when it was suffering under feudal conditions. It still has to be worked through logistically, with planning. If people can offer criticisms of China that allege to logistical and planning mistakes that could be course-corrected, that would, I think, be a lot more substantive as criticism than the majority. The problem with ideological criticisms alone is that they have a tendency to assume that a seemingly subpar or undesirable decision is being made due to a lack of ideological interest in something better. Rather than a decision being made due to a belief that the conditions are not yet right for one approach or another, or due to a logistical mistake in analysis. Discerning that difference properly is critical. If we were to judge AES states in the purely ideological way at all times, they would always be failures because they are not instantly going for global communism and sacrificing everything for it. Which leads to ultra left opining about someone else not doing a thing we want, without effecting the desired change.
Are you going to write a novel about how America pulled itself up by its bootstraps in its revolution against Britain next?
I'm aware you are on a little time out, but I found this post an easy-peasy overview of China's abstention, I hope you take the time to read it:
Excuse me?
The US built its state through genocide and slavery, and split from Britain in order to cement its independent interests in that realm.
What strange view do you have of China that you think talking about the processes of a socialist state in international politics is remotely the same as talking about the birth of a settler nation (the US) that has been terrorizing and exploiting the world since it became globally powerful? What forum did you think you posted on?
Just look at the post history, lol. Most of what you said went over their head already.
Hmm, I looked. Far as I can tell, their thing is that Russia and China are failing a moral test on Palestine and so are traitors as a whole. If so, I can certainly understand their frustration, but the criticism needs to have more depth than "they [allegedly] could be doing x and they aren't".
One of the reasons I try not to say much on China in detail is because I don't actually know all that much about how it is in the details and so trying to judge properly what it could or couldn't be doing logistically in this moment would be a wild guess at best. For all I know, there are experienced members of the CPC who think China should be doing more on the Palestine issue and are trying to make it happen. But I don't know and I never see people citing stuff like that. Instead, people tend to talk about morality in isolation from conditions and it comes across as something like "the foreigner has to be one of perfect victim, perfect savior, or member of the villain squad, there is no inbetween." I don't think China is perfect (nor do I think anyone or entity is) and I wish that people who criticized them would go beyond these categories.
When will we (leftist) finally graduate from liberal thought such as "Overton Window", "Brainwashing" and general supremacy of moralism. Its CLASS ANALYSIS that is our primary modus operandi and Historical Materialism is our eye. You will never lecture people into doing the right thing - ESPECIALLY when it will have an negative economic effect on them.
Return to your point, I agree with a 100% - the incessant need to declare china as your enemy is very strange (not really) for the western left - like they actively want china to this revisionist "bad country" so they can support us state line in "good leftist way". My heart breaks everyday the genocide of the Palestinian continues and I wish like most of this site that it would end no matter. But the brains ought to know that WISHING and WANTING the world to be a way, does not make it so. We need the collective power to actually create the change we want to see, and the first step is perceiving what is in front of us, not what we WISH to see.
China will not help unless Hamas is the undisputed authoritative voice of the Palestinian people, unless a significant amount of Muslim - especially arab countries actually want to oppose the west. Even the most internationalist force that was the soviet union only helped when there was enough support for resistance, they never created communist revolutions in vast colonial estates of the west out of thin air. Not only is the harsh truth that the PRC's responsibility is to the Chinese people first and foremost, but also that china increasingly meddling in an outright hostile (more and more governments sign the Abraham accords for example) region is contrary to their grand multipolar non-interventionist order they are selling as the alternative to the west empire.
Comrades in the middle east need to create the strong, UNITED, and organized anti-west force that china and russia are willing to court.
China had a big mouth for 2 years and now endorses the US-Israeli genocide of Palestinians and supports Israeli colonization of Gaza.
Damn cool story you should write more fiction. Who supports the genocide in Myanmar again?
China and Russia are both on the UNSC they are no longer doing a "popular civil revolution". Complicity in the genocide of Palestine is a massive failure and L.
Which part of what I said is supposedly fictional? Point me to the exact quote(s), please.
Siding with Israel and calling a country socialist is a great joke. Respond to who is supporting the genocide in Myanmar and the rest because you sure are evading it.
Do you not believe that China is run by a working class vanguard party (also known as a dictatorship of the proletariat)? What do you think a socialist state is?
Do you not care about the semantics of who is doing imperialism and settler colonialism
no
Please answer the question. If I am to understand you are yourself a socialist, then I think it's a fair question to ask what you think a socialist state is.
If socialism is supporting imperialism and genocide then I sure as hell am not one. But labels have no meaning these days anyways.
Socialism is not, as a practice, for the purpose of supporting imperialism or genocide.
That said, I think I see what's going on. There is probably a better primer on dialectics someone could provide, but this is what I have on hand to recommend, so here it is: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
Here is the conclusion from it:
We may now say a few words to sum up. The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics; this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. In studying the particularity and relativity of contradiction, we must give attention to the distinction between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions and to the distinction between the principal aspect and the non-principal aspect of a contradiction; in studying the universality of contradiction and the struggle of opposites in contradiction, we must give attention to the distinction between the different forms of struggle. Otherwise we shall make mistakes. If, through study, we achieve a real understanding of the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas which are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and detrimental to our revolutionary cause, and our comrades with practical experience will be able to organize their experience into principles and avoid repeating empiricist errors. These are a few simple conclusions from our study of the law of contradiction.
You might be inclined to think I'm trying to "make excuses" somehow taking the conversation in this direction. Why I'm taking it in this direction is you seem to be operating on a binary train of thought that goes something like: if there is any perceived/alleged contradiction between one thing and another, then one or the other must be wholly thrown out. With dialectics, we work out how to navigate the contradictions inherent in things in order to develop toward something better.
Idealism might say we can overcome this with sheer willpower and conviction instead, and bypass the need to engage with contradictions. But the evidence would indicate that doesn't work, especially at scale, and people largely need to be organized in relation to their conditions in order to develop into a different form, which then changes their conditions and also changes the organization and so on.
If you'd like, you are welcome to dislike me and think that I, like you speak about China, am not doing enough for the most victimized in the world. But I will still try to make this point about process and development.
Common metaphysical, binary thinking L., which may lead to doomerist disengagement or neoconservatism. Revolutionaries in Disguise: The Trotskyist Origins of American Neoconservatism and the Globalization of Ideological Warfare
Comrades being the reincarnation of Sankara with such patience these days 🙏😅 ty
I am touched, thank you. I could not manage it without the good example and learning help from others over the years. ❤️
it's fucking wild to see people in the imperial core (as The Lorax here has in their bio) criticize China for not standing up enough against the empire. that's literally our job in the imperial core!
Chu mean? China is literally part of the imperial core. Do you know what UNSC is?
China is not part of the Western block, what we call the imperial core. The Imperial core is led by the US, followed by Western Europe (especially France, Germany and the UK), and then some specific states like Israel, Japan, Canada and Australia. They are a block because they follow the same economic policies, they have the same ideological vision on the rest of the world, they are in the same military alliances, they usually back each others policies etc.
China does not partake in US foreign policy or the whole set of imperial core policies. US can support Ukraine against Russia but China won't follow the US just because it said so. China won't stop trading with Iran even if the US and Europe decided Iran should be a pariah country. China did not back the US against Iraq and Afghanistan, like the UK, Germany and France did. China won't back the IMF in strangling under developed countries, it will instead alternative forms of funding that won't go through the West backed institutions. China backs Cuba even though it avoids putting themselves under sanctions.
That said, there's plenty of criticisms to be done about China, like it acted as a US partner for a short period during the Sino-Soviet split. China invaded Vietnam in one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the last century just to appease the US. China sees no problem in trading with Israel, even though it maintains a pro-palestine rhetoric. China sees no problem in trading commodities with Latin American countries, even if this trade makes many right wing reactionary capitalist strata richer in these countries. China has shown multiple times if it has to choose between a pragmatic position in support for its own national interests it will choose so, even if it harms international proletarian solidarity.
There are many different Marxist positions on China, so it's not like they all support it acritically. There are Marxists that treat China as just another capitalist superpower; and there are many others who see China as an advanced position regarding socialism, but with many critical positions in different specific points, with many different degrees of criticsm.
What we are different from many Westerners, or the liberal Western left, is that we don't consume histerical anti-China propaganda acritically. We don't see China as devil or savior, we try to see it for what it is. And today, liking China or not, China is the main force challenging Western imperialism, so if any country or political organization is serious on fighting imperialism, it needs to have a serious position on China, because of its crucial position in the geopolitics have influence in whatever action it may take.
China has veto rights at the UNSC which literally is the imperial core at this point. They aren't a poor little baby toddler who accidentally supported genocide and colonizaztion.
You are confusing two different universes:
- The universe where the UN Charter has binding force on the U.S.
- And the universe we actually live in.
It is time to drop that fantasy that the UN or the international law has any power over the US or Europe imperialist bloodlust. The turd Marco Rubio perfectly summarized what the US thinks of the UN: ""I don't care what the UN says".
In summary, the U.S. does not obey international law.
Do you know what veto rights at UNSC are?
Do you know the UN literally has an army?
Did you read up about anything in the resolution before jumping to China's defense?
I know what it is and that's why I am telling you that you are believing in this fantasy that the international law has any binding effect over the US.
One example of the many failures of the UNSC is Haiti. Has the UNSC stopped the US from arms smuggling weapons to Haiti? As a reminder, UNSC imposed an arms embargo on Haiti in 2022
What you are currently doing is desperately diluting the blame from the imperialists and to remove the focus on the real aggressors(Europe and the US).
Do yourself a favor and read the resolution which China just passed before pulling out random stuff about Haiti, this is getting emberassing.
What you are currently doing is desperately diluting the blame from the imperialists and to remove the focus on the real aggressors (every member of UNSC including China and Russia)
Haiti is not some "random stuff" that you can dismiss. It literally is a case example why putting your faith in the UN and UNSC is idealism and delusion at this point. Even with the UNSC, they never stopped this but actually made the situation a lot worse:
It amazes me how people can still believe in the UN after all of these years of failure to stop the genocide in Palestine, to stop the bleeding of Haiti, to stop the deadly blockade on Cuba or to stop any of the US war crimes in the Caribbean. It is bizarre.
Yes, it's like Israel has violated international law multiple times and still UN hasn't done shit. The UNSC is nothing but symbolic, the actual power to impose the law comes from countries' hard power (economic and military), not from law.
And while I do have criticism of China, it's extremely idiotic to think they would enter in an open war with the US. Not even the US dares to challenge China in an open confrontation. It's not like people want the end of the world with a nuclear apocalypse.
The US constantly violates international laws and nothing ever happens.
Isn'treal already violated this resolution and USA let them, idk why anyone expected otherwise.
you're not a very good troll
I don't think they're trolling, and I don't doubt they're better read than myself; I do think I've had (brief, but that's my fault) encounters with material here on the Troika that would benefit them reading, if they could bother/ find the time.
[deleted]
Triggered lib detected.
[deleted]
Holy shit i remember many OP posts from .ml as somewhat centrist but not that bad for a westolefto but then they went fully Zenz crusade level over an UN resolution of all things.