Have you ever met someone who shares the same moral values as you, who genuinely seems a good person, but has completely different political positions? If so, you are probably experiencing a knowledge gap and the person with the greater insight usually understands how the other thinks.
For me, my morals are pretty simple: I envision a better world with no poverty, war, exploitation, discrimination or oppression of any kind, including towards non-human animals, and generally with no unnecessary suffering—I'm also a communist. When I talk positively/neutrally about socialist countries I'm usually met with reactions like:
"How can you support those countries! They're dictatorships!"
"You're a campist!"
"Just because the West is bad doesn't mean they are good, two things can be true at once"
"Are you falling for THEIR propaganda?"
And that's where the knowledge gap lies here, because it's quite the opposite: I live in Italy, one of the most anti-communist countries in the world, the birthplace of fascism, and I've always been exposed to *Western* propaganda. In fact, Italy is so anti-communist that during the Cold War, while other Western European countries had their proper communist parties, Italy's so-called communist party was so inadequate that the term "Italian communism" was coined, liberals to this day are called communists as an insult.
After the USSR defeated Germany in 1945, communism was surging and the US could not possibly compete ideologically with a system that delivered full employment, housing, healthcare, education, gender equality and support to liberationist groups in the Global South, so they had to destroy the idea that such a system could be possible and that it was actually evil — violence and wasn't enough, they had to convince everybody that revolution was a bad idea.
Mere anti-communist propaganda wasn't sufficient to do that, they also needed to build a compatible left: an ideology seemingly revolutionary, seemingly radical, lacking in materialist analysis, replaced with idealist discourse instead, that ultimately served bourgeois interests; an anti-communist leftism that concluded that the USSR was as bad as fascist countries, that China is State-capitalist and that revolution is authoritarian. To achieve this, in the 1950s and 60s the CIA infiltrated intellectual circles, universities, publishing houses and international student organizations, with the ultimate purpose of creating a non-materialist leftism that could serve capital, not liberation of the proletariat. That's how so many Western leftists turned to some form of democratic socialism, trotskyism or left communism, while often never reading Lenin or researching about socialist countries. To my experience, today forms of idealist leftism are especially widespread among humanities students, with many self-proclaimed marxists lacking in materialist analysis.
Due to growing in an anti-communist society, I was severely propagandized for the first 20 years of my life. Then I became a leftist, with the goal of coherently aligning my politics with my morals, and I started to unlearn all the lies and consolidated beliefs pushed onto me, so no, I'm not falling for their propaganda, I fell for ours. I, too, used to delude myself with the "two things can be true at once" concept, not applicable here. I used to believe the same lies: in this convos I have leverage because I know how others think.
In less than 50 years China developed from one of the poorest countries on Earth to the leader in innovation, lifting 800 million out of poverty in just 25 years. As capitalism enters its latest stages, quality of life decreases and anticapitalism spreads, China will develop to the most prosperous nation on the planet, thanks to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. The US will launch a cultural war on China in an attempt to get leftists to believe China is "State-capitalist", authoritarian, secretly evil, undesirable, because if people see the success of scientific socialism, the they will want a revolution of their own.
Beware of opportunists.
For me, my morals are pretty simple: I envision a better world with no poverty, war, exploitation, discrimination or oppression of any kind, including towards non-human animals, and generally with no unnecessary suffering—I'm also a communist. When I talk positively/neutrally about socialist countries I'm usually met with reactions like:
"How can you support those countries! They're dictatorships!"
"You're a campist!"
"Just because the West is bad doesn't mean they are good, two things can be true at once"
"Are you falling for THEIR propaganda?"
And that's where the knowledge gap lies here, because it's quite the opposite: I live in Italy, one of the most anti-communist countries in the world, the birthplace of fascism, and I've always been exposed to *Western* propaganda. In fact, Italy is so anti-communist that during the Cold War, while other Western European countries had their proper communist parties, Italy's so-called communist party was so inadequate that the term "Italian communism" was coined, liberals to this day are called communists as an insult.
After the USSR defeated Germany in 1945, communism was surging and the US could not possibly compete ideologically with a system that delivered full employment, housing, healthcare, education, gender equality and support to liberationist groups in the Global South, so they had to destroy the idea that such a system could be possible and that it was actually evil — violence and wasn't enough, they had to convince everybody that revolution was a bad idea.
Mere anti-communist propaganda wasn't sufficient to do that, they also needed to build a compatible left: an ideology seemingly revolutionary, seemingly radical, lacking in materialist analysis, replaced with idealist discourse instead, that ultimately served bourgeois interests; an anti-communist leftism that concluded that the USSR was as bad as fascist countries, that China is State-capitalist and that revolution is authoritarian. To achieve this, in the 1950s and 60s the CIA infiltrated intellectual circles, universities, publishing houses and international student organizations, with the ultimate purpose of creating a non-materialist leftism that could serve capital, not liberation of the proletariat. That's how so many Western leftists turned to some form of democratic socialism, trotskyism or left communism, while often never reading Lenin or researching about socialist countries. To my experience, today forms of idealist leftism are especially widespread among humanities students, with many self-proclaimed marxists lacking in materialist analysis.
Due to growing in an anti-communist society, I was severely propagandized for the first 20 years of my life. Then I became a leftist, with the goal of coherently aligning my politics with my morals, and I started to unlearn all the lies and consolidated beliefs pushed onto me, so no, I'm not falling for their propaganda, I fell for ours. I, too, used to delude myself with the "two things can be true at once" concept, not applicable here. I used to believe the same lies: in this convos I have leverage because I know how others think.
In less than 50 years China developed from one of the poorest countries on Earth to the leader in innovation, lifting 800 million out of poverty in just 25 years. As capitalism enters its latest stages, quality of life decreases and anticapitalism spreads, China will develop to the most prosperous nation on the planet, thanks to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. The US will launch a cultural war on China in an attempt to get leftists to believe China is "State-capitalist", authoritarian, secretly evil, undesirable, because if people see the success of scientific socialism, the they will want a revolution of their own.
Beware of opportunists.
Marking history, AfD, the far-right German party, won 44% of the votes in the regional Saxony-Anhalt elections yesterday. In order to fight fascism, we first need to understand what it is, how it developed, and how today's fascism differs from 20th-century fascism.
In the late 1800s, the 2nd Industrial Revolution hit Europe, the economy boomed and, soon enough, it reached a peak where European markets became saturated. Because capitalism always seeks growth, in 1884 European powers met during the Berlin Conference and decided to carve up Africa to exploit its resources and people. Eventually, their interests and expansionism started bumping into each other, tensions couldn't be solved, and conflict was unavoidable. In 1914, World War I started.
Italy was on the winning side of the war, but it didn't feel victorious. It didn't get the territories that France and Britain had promised it, and a new wave of nationalism was born, which would soon be exploited by Mussolini, who promised to make Italy great again. Italy had one of the weakest communist parties in Europe, so nobody was able to speak to the masses against the establishment other than the fascists, who took power in 1922.
Germany, on the other hand, completely lost the war: it lost all of its colonies and some territories in Europe, was forced to pay reparations, and soon entered hyperinflation. Germans felt completely humiliated, and Hitler, promising to take revenge and make Germany great again, would also take power. Germany also had one of the weakest communist parties in Europe because, in 1919, the social-democratic government murdered its leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, causing instability in the party and leaving nobody to speak to the masses and inspire hope.
We see that fascism is a natural stage of capitalism: because capitalism creates unbearable living conditions for people, the masses naturally seek an alternative to the liberal establishment — radical problems require radical responses, not centrism trying to preserve the status quo. When the material needs of average people aren't met by communists discussing class struggle (Italy and Germany both had weak communist parties), they're instead met by fascists blaming Jews, socialists, immigrants, feminism, transgender people, because, if fascists can intercept class consciousness by blaming minorities, they can prevent a socialist revolution.
The "Final Solution" (the plan of total extermination of Jewish people) wasn't unpredictable; it was the logical outcome of Nazism. Fascism avoids the discussion of class struggle by persecuting minorities, but that doesn't solve the core issue, which is capitalism and social injustice. New enemies have to be created, and new minorities have to be targeted until the boiling temperature is reached and genocide is the logical, natural conclusion.
There's a key difference between 20th- and 21st-century fascism: historical fascist countries were led by vanguard revolutionary parties that took power by force and actually opposed the establishment. Historical fascism wasn't necessarily anticapitalist; fascists would work with the national bourgeoisie and legislate in its interests, but the State ultimately held the final say. There were actual anticapitalist tendencies in Hitler's party, for example. Today's fascism (MAGA in the US, AfD in Germany, Reform UK, National Rally in France, National Future in Italy, Vox in Spain...), however, is a mere representation of the bourgeois class, with the goal of shifting the political spectrum to the right and preventing a rise in class consciousness. In this new type of fascism, the State doesn't hold actual autonomous power, the billionaires do. The tools used are the same, and the end point, the Final Solution, is still genocide, so it's not any less worrisome.
In the late 1800s, the 2nd Industrial Revolution hit Europe, the economy boomed and, soon enough, it reached a peak where European markets became saturated. Because capitalism always seeks growth, in 1884 European powers met during the Berlin Conference and decided to carve up Africa to exploit its resources and people. Eventually, their interests and expansionism started bumping into each other, tensions couldn't be solved, and conflict was unavoidable. In 1914, World War I started.
Italy was on the winning side of the war, but it didn't feel victorious. It didn't get the territories that France and Britain had promised it, and a new wave of nationalism was born, which would soon be exploited by Mussolini, who promised to make Italy great again. Italy had one of the weakest communist parties in Europe, so nobody was able to speak to the masses against the establishment other than the fascists, who took power in 1922.
Germany, on the other hand, completely lost the war: it lost all of its colonies and some territories in Europe, was forced to pay reparations, and soon entered hyperinflation. Germans felt completely humiliated, and Hitler, promising to take revenge and make Germany great again, would also take power. Germany also had one of the weakest communist parties in Europe because, in 1919, the social-democratic government murdered its leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, causing instability in the party and leaving nobody to speak to the masses and inspire hope.
We see that fascism is a natural stage of capitalism: because capitalism creates unbearable living conditions for people, the masses naturally seek an alternative to the liberal establishment — radical problems require radical responses, not centrism trying to preserve the status quo. When the material needs of average people aren't met by communists discussing class struggle (Italy and Germany both had weak communist parties), they're instead met by fascists blaming Jews, socialists, immigrants, feminism, transgender people, because, if fascists can intercept class consciousness by blaming minorities, they can prevent a socialist revolution.
The "Final Solution" (the plan of total extermination of Jewish people) wasn't unpredictable; it was the logical outcome of Nazism. Fascism avoids the discussion of class struggle by persecuting minorities, but that doesn't solve the core issue, which is capitalism and social injustice. New enemies have to be created, and new minorities have to be targeted until the boiling temperature is reached and genocide is the logical, natural conclusion.
There's a key difference between 20th- and 21st-century fascism: historical fascist countries were led by vanguard revolutionary parties that took power by force and actually opposed the establishment. Historical fascism wasn't necessarily anticapitalist; fascists would work with the national bourgeoisie and legislate in its interests, but the State ultimately held the final say. There were actual anticapitalist tendencies in Hitler's party, for example. Today's fascism (MAGA in the US, AfD in Germany, Reform UK, National Rally in France, National Future in Italy, Vox in Spain...), however, is a mere representation of the bourgeois class, with the goal of shifting the political spectrum to the right and preventing a rise in class consciousness. In this new type of fascism, the State doesn't hold actual autonomous power, the billionaires do. The tools used are the same, and the end point, the Final Solution, is still genocide, so it's not any less worrisome.
Fascism was able to rise to power because there wasn't 'enough' communism, and it was defeated by communism (the USSR). The reason so many people in Western countries are being lost to fascism isn't that they're stupid, nor that they're uneducated; it's because there isn't enough communism around, no one is out there speaking about a socialist alternative.
Working-class people, disappointed by liberal centrists, have no choice but to find answers in the fascists who tell them it's the Jews, it's the immigrants, it's the gays; the only effective way to fight fascism is through communism. This time, there might not be any Soviet Union to save us, because China has a different approach to international politics.
Antifascism IS communism.
Capitalism leads to fascism, fascism leads to genocide. The only way to fight fascism is through socialist revolution — that's why communists will often say "social democracy is the left-wing faction of fascism".
Social democrats (like Zohran Mamdani, Pedro Sánchez, ...) aim to reform capitalism to make it better for people. They want to implement more welfare, free healthcare, free education, better working conditions, and other socialist policies. However, their purpose is actually anti-socialist: they want to make capitalism nicer so you don't notice the problems with it, don't acquire class consciousness, don't search for radical solutions, and, ultimately, don't seek revolution. Historically, social democrats were always anti-communists; they rose to power by backstabbing socialists (Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the Russian Revolution, ...) and opposing the USSR. Social democrats are just nice liberals, they want to protect capitalism.
As a matter of fact, if you're new to getting into communism, you should be prepared for the liberals. They will tell you that you're creating "division" in the left and that you're an extremist. When you rightfully support violence against fascism, they will say that you're just as bad as fascists themselves and that violence is never the answer. Unfortunately, they don't know that they can't defeat fascism by voting for the lesser evil.
Revolution is the answer ☭
Working-class people, disappointed by liberal centrists, have no choice but to find answers in the fascists who tell them it's the Jews, it's the immigrants, it's the gays; the only effective way to fight fascism is through communism. This time, there might not be any Soviet Union to save us, because China has a different approach to international politics.
Antifascism IS communism.
Capitalism leads to fascism, fascism leads to genocide. The only way to fight fascism is through socialist revolution — that's why communists will often say "social democracy is the left-wing faction of fascism".
Social democrats (like Zohran Mamdani, Pedro Sánchez, ...) aim to reform capitalism to make it better for people. They want to implement more welfare, free healthcare, free education, better working conditions, and other socialist policies. However, their purpose is actually anti-socialist: they want to make capitalism nicer so you don't notice the problems with it, don't acquire class consciousness, don't search for radical solutions, and, ultimately, don't seek revolution. Historically, social democrats were always anti-communists; they rose to power by backstabbing socialists (Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the Russian Revolution, ...) and opposing the USSR. Social democrats are just nice liberals, they want to protect capitalism.
As a matter of fact, if you're new to getting into communism, you should be prepared for the liberals. They will tell you that you're creating "division" in the left and that you're an extremist. When you rightfully support violence against fascism, they will say that you're just as bad as fascists themselves and that violence is never the answer. Unfortunately, they don't know that they can't defeat fascism by voting for the lesser evil.
Revolution is the answer ☭
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Everyday I feel guilty for previously believing the lies about North Korea.
These images can't be easily found through a quick Google search, I went all the way to a Chinese museum's website. That's because the US doesn't want us to see them.
The Empire will never admit it has committed genocide. It will hide all proof and build a convenient, false narrative that benefits it. It will lie to you.
Attempting to annihilate an entire people and then call their resistance a dystopian dictatorship is one of the most evil, repugnant things they could do.
North Korea is the Palestine of East Asia 🤍🇵🇸🇰🇵
These images can't be easily found through a quick Google search, I went all the way to a Chinese museum's website. That's because the US doesn't want us to see them.
The Empire will never admit it has committed genocide. It will hide all proof and build a convenient, false narrative that benefits it. It will lie to you.
Attempting to annihilate an entire people and then call their resistance a dystopian dictatorship is one of the most evil, repugnant things they could do.
North Korea is the Palestine of East Asia 🤍🇵🇸🇰🇵