This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
No comment from me
Taking the tiniest grain of an accurate observation and sprinting with it in the most uselessly misanthropic and self-satisfied direction possible, the BE special
Dude's gonna end up as some kind of weird antinatal nuclear extinction advocate
Posadist Empanada era incoming
white leftists stop performative self-flagellating challenge
BE also doxxed my friend BayArea415.
Goes perfectly along with his recent rants about how the USA invading Greenland would be good because it would be Americans killing Europeans. Despite the fact the almost 90% of the population of Greenland is Inuit.
Hey look Innuits aren't real colonised people bcz they exist in an area that is north of Britain.
Badempenada's book called "why revisionism is cool actually"
He also said the same about Chile and Argentina.
That Chile and Argentina never had genocide against the Indigenous.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. In his video about Argentina and Racism, he pretty clearly states that the subsequent rulers of Argentina since its independence were European liberals based on Buenos Aires, who consistently commited ethnic cleansing against the indigenous people. He goes on to link their ideological liberalism to the ideology of US manifest destiny.
I think claiming he's a LatAm genocide denialist is a little too far of a claim.
I've seen him on Twitter saying that it wasn't a genocide, but he keeps either deleting his tweets or his Twitter accounts keep getting banned so it's hard to tell.
Wild take since Mapuche resistance is like still very much active to this day.
Is he even aware of the indigenous population? A lot seem to think it’s populated by white Danes
People think its discount Iceland because it has a similar name and the most known thing about greenland is the viking switcheroo with Iceland to trick norse settlers into choosing iceland (not true btw) -> meaning its major association is with europeans only.
I also seen a take that the Inuit are colonisers who genocided previous population so you see, USA invading Greenland is actually doubly anticolonialist! And the real indigenous population were vikings.
This and a comment he made regarding how US leftists can't be persuaded by empathy and solidarity (real anti-imperialist framing in his words) really make me pinch the bridge of my nose. In the latter post he declared that it might be more effective to make Americans think they are being harmed by the US relationship with Israel as an appeal to their inate selfishness.
It just has me scratching my head becuase... is that not the entire idea of material interest? Is it not in the material interest of many anti-imperialist countries to fight Israeli imperialism? Would South Lebanon not be better off if the zionist entity collapsed and it instead bordered a Palestinian state? Would Iran not have more regional influence if there was one less US vassel to contend with? Would the Global South, who are constantly agressed against by Western international lawfare benifet from shifting the paradigm against Western aligned states?
I'm not going to say that the US Palestinian liberation movement is some kind of revolutionary force, or that there isn't a lot more that could be done, or if they are not infested with liberals. However it's the peak of idealism to criticize them for agitating to other Americans by appealing to how the zionist entity hurts them. It's basic Marxist analysis that a people's material conditions influence their actions.
It's fucking infuriating that I have to justify my humanity as a Muslim to US Yakkubian liberals, but if I need to explain to them why the US destroying my communities homelands will come back to hurt them, then I still do it. If those Whites start getting upset becuase of them got killed by the fascist militia, I'm still glad that they are starting to oppose the fascist militia. Not because of some idealist notion but because that gets the heat off my back potentially.
I've said it before here, I'm not a communist because I'm altruistic, I'm a communist becuase the Liberation of humanity would benifet me.
As much of a jackass as he is, he makes a half point. The average American does not care about anything but themselves and maybe their friends and family, and especially not people who don't look like them. Look at how they reacted to Ukraine vs Gaza.
Half a point? This is completely the point! Overwhelmingly the reaction to these two events shows how backward and (frustratingly) indifferent the people of the US have become. As a socialist I don't need to couch my utter disappointment with "well some of them are genuine" to make American comrades feel better. The hard truth is that there is work to be done, and nobody has more of a job to do than the western left in order to fix it.
Some people are really showing their ass lately, indicating that they're more upset at the western left having any progress at all, than they are at the imperialists, i.e. their identity is more about being a west-hater than it is being anti-imperialist. I don't care if someone is generally pissed at the western left for not being effective enough, but shitting on it during a crisis instead of encouraging further development is, well... maybe it's too weighty to say it this way, but it strikes me as counter-revolutionary, wrecker shit. Like what the fuck do these people want. The US makeup is not going to change the whole of its behavior overnight and it wouldn't even if a communist, de-colonial vanguard party took over today.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of libs talking more about annexing Greenland as a bad thing instead of the Venezuela situation would have made more sense. Also, sneering at people for being outraged at fascist excesses in the US is... a choice.
Is Badempanada not aware of how large the anti-war protests in the US are?
hard to say since he's a ragebaiter. it's maybe fair to ignore our anti-war protests since the government doesn't pay attention to them either.
the only attention most protests require from the state is local police giving approval to when/where it happens
~~"protests"~~ angry parades*
Not to be mean but much of the world doesn't really see American or really western "protests" as protests they're more like angry parades
more like angry parades
thanks this made me laugh
So the people in 2020 who were brutalized by cops for protesting police brutality, were those parade participants?
Yes? Repression alone doesn’t turn something into a real challenge to power. Liberal states routinely brutalize protests they know will remain contained. In 2020 millions marched, chanted, got beaten, posted photos, then went home and the system carried on largely unchanged: police power intact, imperial violence ongoing, no serious threat to state authority. That’s why much of the world sees Western “protests” as angry parades: emotionally intense, sometimes violently policed, but structurally safe. They function less as challenges to power and more as pressure-release valves for discontent that the system knows how to absorb and move past.
The point I'm making is that in using this cavalier language of "parade", you are also trivializing protest efforts where people have suffered injury or imprisonment; and you justify this to me because they weren't successful at challenging power, as if this means the risk and injury involved don't matter. I'm plenty familiar with the arguments about the limited effectiveness of western protests and I think there is validity to that point of view. You can make that point without also throwing under the bus people who have put their lives on the line under unsafe circumstances and you can do it without arrogantly presenting your position as if it speaks for the precise viewpoint of billions of people across the world.
You’re arguing against a position I’m not taking. I’m not dismissing people’s suffering, courage, or risk; I’m rejecting the idea that suffering itself constitutes a challenge to power, or even a protest in any meaningful sense. Repression is not the same thing as leverage. Western protests don’t “fail” in some tragic way, they’re never structured to succeed in the first place: no durable mass organization, no discipline, no concrete enforceable demands, no escalation strategy, and crucially no mechanism that makes the state fear consequences if it ignores them. Being beaten by cops inside a ritualized protest cycle the state fully understands and contains doesn’t change that. And yes, from the perspective of the periphery, it’s hard to summon much sympathy when citizens of the core (whose governments operate the largest immiseration apparatus in human history, grinding the periphery nonstop, 24/7 365, with the ultimate orphan-crushing machine) can’t even mount protests that make the slightest material difference. That’s not arrogance or moral contempt; it’s a material critique of a protest culture designed as a pressure-release valve for the empire, not a threat to it, elevated in the West to near-biblical canon where peaceful, state-sanctioned parades are treated as the only legitimate form of politics outside of the ballot box.
To try to clarify some things:
I will also admit I'm not in a great mood about any of this right now and that is affecting how I read things.
On the “much of the world” phrasing: I’m not claiming a universal global consensus. I’m speaking from experience as someone from the periphery who has had the privilege to be able to travel across the periphery, where this is a recurring sentiment I’ve encountered again and again. “Much of the world” may be an exaggeration, but the underlying perspective is far from rare, especially among people whose political reference points are mass struggle, repression, and real confrontations with state power rather than liberal civil society rituals.
On calling them “parades”: I’m not implying joy or celebration. I use the term because these events are seemingly typically state-sanctioned or permitted, confined to approved routes, heavily policed yet managed, and highly choreographed from start to finish. The presence of tear gas or batons doesn’t negate that. Violence can occur entirely within a controlled script, and when the outcome is predictable dispersal rather than escalation or leverage, “parade” is an accurate structural description, not a moral slight.
And to be clear, this isn’t about denying complexity or flattening liberation struggle, it’s about refusing to romanticize impotence. Western protest culture elevates these managed spectacles into moral absolutes while systematically marginalizing forms of struggle that actually threaten power. That’s not neutral; it actively disarms movements by teaching people that symbolic display and sanctioned outrage are the peak of political action. Naming that isn’t disrespectful to those who suffer within these protests, it’s a necessary critique of a model that reproduces defeat while insisting it represents resistance.
If you’re not in a great mood, I get that. But the disagreement here isn’t about empathy; it’s about analysis. And analytically, a system that can absorb mass outrage, brutalize it, and still face no material threat is not being seriously challenged, regardless of how real the pain involved is. And as sad as it sounds a protest that doesn't challenge power in any meaningful way is best described as a parade.
On the “much of the world” phrasing: I’m not claiming a universal global consensus. I’m speaking from experience as someone from the periphery who has had the privilege to be able to travel across the periphery, where this is a recurring sentiment I’ve encountered again and again. “Much of the world” may be an exaggeration, but the underlying perspective is far from rare, especially among people whose political reference points are mass struggle, repression, and real confrontations with state power rather than liberal civil society rituals.
FWIW, I would probably take no issue on the "much of the world" phrasing if you reference it as "based on my recurring experience with others in the periphery." It makes it clear what your source is, while also still carrying a certain authoritative weight to it, to say that this is what keeps cropping up for you over and over. With the other phrasing, my bullshit meter goes off and I have to wonder if the person isn't just pulling it out of their backside, no matter how much good faith I may or may not have in them as a person.
I use the term because these events are seemingly typically state-sanctioned or permitted, confined to approved routes, heavily policed yet managed, and highly choreographed from start to finish.
If you’re not in a great mood, I get that. But the disagreement here isn’t about empathy; it’s about analysis. And analytically, a system that can absorb mass outrage, brutalize it, and still face no material threat is not being seriously challenged, regardless of how real the pain involved is. And as sad as it sounds a protest that doesn’t challenge power in any meaningful way is best described as a parade.
Right and I understand the impotence of that and am not in disagreement there. However, I still don't think parade is appropriate phrasing for every type of it. There is protest that probably fits that description well and then there is protest that is more spontaneous and faces more of a reaction and political repression than otherwise. That the state is willing to do violence in the face of any of it shows that it's not all state-sanctioned and choreographed and some of it is at most the state grudgingly allowing it to a certain degree it finds acceptable.
I think it would be safe to say the liberal capitalist apparatus only wants to allow the "parade" style of protest. But I think it would be inaccurate to say that's the only style that ever occurs. It may be fair to say they're all impotent styles regardless, considering the seeming lack of any resultant change that holds as a broader challenge. But I still don't think they all qualify as parade-like in the definition you use.
I think where we’re talking past each other, I’m not claiming Western protest takes only one empirical form. There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored. I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance. Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored. I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance. Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
This is such a banger of a comment that if you ever get the chance please flesh it out into a post/substack/essay series etc and also with what you propose should happen from a dialectical materialist perspective (with citations etc). Only if you ever get the chance/time.
(If the person you're replying to reads this: please don't take this personally from me against you. I too am still learning and your posts are always an interesting read.)
Thank you for your reply I would like to go much more in depth at some point as I find it to be a very interesting topic but for now I think I'll simply point to a book and an essay that I feel each encapsulate part of the issue.
First is Guy Debord The Society of the Spectacle, this I feel brings to light the issue in advanced capitalist countries for spectacle to replace real action and interaction.
Second is Jones Manoel Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture, which I feel succinctly explains in some way why even the western left falls prey to the spectacular yet materially ineffectual parades and riots as opposed to real organized protest with mass organisation, concrete demands and an escalation plan.
As for “what is to be done,” as much as I'd love to simply say form a maoist guerilla force and overthrow your overlords, I don’t think the real answer is that interesting or that novel a concept even in the west. Politically meaningful protest (even in the West) has historically depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP and CORE coordinated sustained action, while local militant currents, such as the Deacons for Defense, made repression costly and instability plausible. Later organizations, including the Black Panther Party, built on these lessons, demonstrating how escalation coupled with strong organization could influence political outcomes. Without comparable structures, leverage, and escalation potential, protest tends to collapse into either brief outbursts or sanctioned displays, both of which the state can safely absorb.
Second one I am familiar with but the first I am not; thanks for the recommendation
For What Is To Be Done: I don't think we collectively we have an answer that does not end up being waiting for Global South spearheaded accelerationism but the latter is not good enough from a Westerner perspective - a materialist political movement also has to come from within as well. But as marxists we should make/stake claims in theory, even with the risk of being "wrong", and feel the response/heat we get from it to fine tune our practice (ie dialectics).
Lemmygrad is still susceptible to westernism (despite it being arugable one of, if not the best, reddit-like forums on the anglosphere. And I too am guilty of this) and comments like yours are excellent analyses of symptoms.
Western protest culture elevates these managed spectacles into moral absolutes while systematically marginalizing forms of struggle that actually threaten power. That’s not neutral; it actively disarms movements by teaching people that symbolic display and sanctioned outrage are the peak of political action. Naming that isn’t disrespectful to those who suffer within these protests, it’s a necessary critique of a model that reproduces defeat while insisting it represents resistance.
Well said!
It's alright not to be in a great mood, I'm not in a great mood either.
The key work here is Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture by Jones Manoel. The viewpoints in the book still hold up after six years, and age very well after one very concessionist 46th administration.
I'm not sure of the connection you're making to that piece in this context, but I do agree it is a good one and have referenced it a number of times on here.
Thanks for your understanding, I hope your mood improves soon.
Read that a few years back hard to disagree with seeing what has happened to now.
It does bother me to insist on framing it as a parade, even when talking about something that involves tear gas used against people. I associate parade with meaning celebration and good times. I understand not all protests are like this and perhaps for some of them, parade would be a more appropriate framing of them.
i "protested" my state's governor over whatever bullshit they were up to 15 years ago and it was literally just a parade around the capitol building.
i have since seen "protests" that are even less efficacious than that. at least parades usually fuck up traffic for a couple hours.
Western protests don’t “fail” in some tragic way, they’re never structured to succeed in the first place: no durable mass organization, no discipline, no concrete enforceable demands, no escalation strategy, and crucially no mechanism that makes the state fear consequences if it ignores them.
💯 ^This. So much this. Very well said.
For those still lurking:
He's completely on the money this time and I don't understand why it's controversial. The level of outage over this has completely exposed how little the US "left" cares about the lives of non Americans. Even when it's the same regime carrying out both actions, this one completely overshadowed the news and discussion while scores of innocent people in Venezuela were killed within goldfish memory. He's making a remark about the lack of empathy they have for the third world, not condemning them for caring about this incident. Ideological consistency should be something every real leftist follows, and if you see all human lives as equal you would have been a hundred times more aggressive and outraged over Venezuela than what many of these people clearly have shown themselves to be.
He ends it with "it's truly hopeless..." when there absolutely have been anti-imperialist organizing efforts (he just ignores that to make it a contest of priorities and say that nobody in the US cares and never will). Worth noting that 2020 was marked by protests sparked by the extrajudicial murder of George Floyd, a black man, so claiming it's only about the death of a "white" person is also erasing even recent history of a similar nature; this incident is tied not just to the death of a white woman, but also to the perception of ICE and its racist campaign.
That said, there are for sure valid criticisms to make of the USian "left". We could spend all day on it and more, and some seem to want to do that right now rather than take advantage of the conditions to improve the situation. But he isn't even doing that. He's hashing together a narrative that trivializes and denies any liberation efforts in the US at all and derides it as hopeless.
I don't know how else to explain this. There is a difference between principled criticism and fatalistic erasure.
The level of outage over this has completely exposed how little the US "left" cares about the lives of non Americans.
It seems to me that the US "left" has been outraged about foreign lives being taken all along, the difference is that the US center is finally mad about something, and they are much louder.
What's controversial is that people are assuming he's talking about the left when he's kind of talking about the US at large as far as I can tell (and this is still a largely English language platform). Not that BE ain't insufferable, a hot take merchant and needlessly confrontational at times but he ain't wrong. If this hadn't happened libs would still be arguing that he should have asked for congressional approval.
70% bad 30% empananda.
I don't think there is more noise about the woman ICE murdered than there is about Venezuela.
Even if there was why would you expect liberals to care about brown people in south america more than a white woman? Why would you expect people to be less mad about something that could just have easily happened to them as something that happened thousands of km away?
None of that would be shocking... if it was the case.
Same shit with all the progressive liberals hating Trump's invasion of Venezeula only because Trump did it without going through the proper channels. Had a democrat done the same thing but with senate approval then imperialism would've been okay in their eyes.
I hate both what is happening in Venezuela, and what ICE is doing. It's all exhausting. My problem is that Liberals will worry about people with no criminal record (you can get one by shoplifting once) getting deported, but not necessarily people with a criminal record. I was hoping seeing people being brutalized simply for being criminals would get Liberals to sympathize with criminals, but instead, there is only the language of "ICE is criminal, Trump is criminal, the inevitable trajectory of Capitalism that I see affecting the law is criminal". I smell plenty of fear from Liberals despite their claims to show none.
First paragraph is correct.
Second paragraph concedes at some level that material conditions informs the idea but then backtracks to criticism of a lack of metaphysical altruism. This latter is just the other side of the coin of those who are firmly in the camp of brainwashing as an explanation for lack of persuasion of westerners towards more significant anti-imperialism (it is not).