Many are protesting because of the sanctions, considered war crimes, imposed by the west onto them.
The US and its allies have attacked the currency and the availability of goods for the common Iranian. This is how regime change works. This is what is happening in Cuba as well. You starve and disenfranchise the average person to make regime change by internal bad-actors more successful.
Therefore many citizens protest against their conditions, not against their government. The misconstruing of this reality is intentional and an essential part of war mongering.
We understand this and we are smarter than the BBC thinks we are. Now ask yourself why must young Americans in the armed forces put their lives on the line for this?
While the sanctions may have triggered the current round of protests, what about the previous rounds? [1]
Why are you ignoring those?
Many Iranians hate their regime because it’s an oppressive theocratic one.
Just as an example of why Iranians would hate their regime, the mismanagement and corruption in the area of water management has led to severe water shortages in Tehran and other areas [2].
I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective on this as a communist.
Capitalist governments, even theocratic ones, are trash for the working class. That would explain those previous protests. Corruption is a totally normal thing in western countries as well. It just doesn't get broadcast in a politicized way, if at all, in our media. (not a coincidence)
Our local capitalist media jut makes it seem louder in certain places when there is an interest, such as the downfall of the Iranian state.
Is this sound enough logic for you to approve sending American kids to die over there?
Right, nothing can, but it is harder to corrupt when the state isn't a handful of people with shields of bureaucracy where access to power can only be attained by the richest individuals in that society.
Communism isn't "let the state do more things" as many think. Communism is "make all of the people into the state". Cut out the middle-man, so to say. Direct democracy, peoples councils, peoples courts, all with a worldview that keeps it that way; socialism/communism. It's intention, as a movement is to not to leave political power to an external organization. To organize your workplace, neighborhood, town and city, into its own political power.
I think it's right and honest to admit that this is one of the methods that sanctions are supposed to work. But it's also not the only method - and framing the intent as inducing "regime change by internal bad-actors" is also a very slanted way to articulate intent, as well as what is happening on the ground.
On the other hand, without being on the ground, we cannot really say what the real balance of grievances are.
"Sanctions" are just a sanitized way of saying "forced starvation" and "denying basic medical care" because that's what happens. For Cuba, this has been going on so long that the CIA documents about the effect of sanctions and a blockade itself has been declassified (in 2005) [1]. When faced with a UN report that estimated 500,000 children had been killed by US sanctions in 1996, then UN Ambassador and later US Secretary of State Madeline Albright famously said "the price was worth it" [2].
And sanctions don't actually work. Not against enemies anyway. Just like Cuba has endured 60+ years of sanctions and Russia has endured Ukraine-related sanctions, enemies have or build an economy to be resilient to the sanctions to the point that the regime survives, even thrives in the face of perceived exteranl threats.
Probably the only successful use of sanctions was South Africa. Why? Because apartheid South Africa was an ally so the BDS movement crippled the economy.
And most of the time sanctions have no other reason than the affected country dared to not be exploited by the West and Western companies.
Funny that this is downvoted. I guess its not fitting the mainstream 'feel good about ourselved, bad, bad, Iran' narrative. Just have a look at Besson's Davos interview.
You only think that because your political partisanship overwhelms your geopolitical knowledge. But sure, a country that is the primary funder of terrorism in the ME is doing nothing wrong.
They didn't, for instance, mess up the building of water infrastructure which is causing the taps to run dry in their capitol. Oh wait, they did. But since that has nothing to do with sanctions, you didn't hear about it because it doesn't fit a specific political narrative.
Also, apparently everyone in the world has the right to trade with the west, even if they are doing everything in their power to destroy the west.
Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money.
This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.
Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Why would state control lead to less policing? What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?
> Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned?
Well that would be true under a capitalist government.
> Why would state control lead to less policing?
Its not just "the state runs it", its "we actively become the state".
Collective ownership through peoples councils, peoples courts with a world view that keeps it all open: socialism.
The world view of not allowing individual ownership over collective goods, the world view of socialism, is the life line of the movement. The actual practice of daily democracy, of running production and of deciding social functions is everyones responsibility and it should not be left to what has become a professional class of liars.
Public office members, which should only exist where absolutely necessary, should be locals and serve as messengers with 0 decision making power. All power should be in the local councils. We can mathematically implement this today (0 knowledge proofs).
Every single book on socialism is on theory and practices of acheiving this. Thats what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is", the dictatorship of working people, collectively.
> What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?
We've been innovating for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism. You dont need to generate money to innovate, the innovation itself is the driver, AKA a better life. No need to lock and limit production behind the attaining of profits of those who lead it.
A lot of people are allergic to this rhetoric and will just assume I have a deep irrational bias, but I was actually a staunch free market supporter before.
Once I decided to be more intellectually honest with myself and read more about what both sides meant historically and currently, it really just made sense.
I'm so exhausted of the partisan "my team vs your team" politics in the US that shuts down conversation, overlooks the blatant hypocrisies on either side, simplifies every issue to a single label to plaster on your opponent, etc etc.
I take honest conversation where I can get it, even when I don't agree. And to be clear I don't agree with most of your points and think it's idealistic and couldn't work in the real world. But I appreciate the spirit of what you're arguing for (in my interpretation) power with the people vs power with corporations and government and I think that's a very fundamental principle that is very important common ground.
If we force it upon them by begging politicians, corporations still have the incentive to find a way to remove it or circumvent it.
Youre playing the cat and mouse game because you've been taught that solving it is too extreme (thats not a coincidence).
We dont need to endlessly fight a whole class of people, capitalists, for them not to use the things we require against us. Only socialism can solve that.
Yeah, I’m amazed at how far the western surveillance apparatus has been able to coast on plausible deniability. Folks, please don’t stick your head in the sand domestically just because there’s an even more obvious or egregious example abroad.
Say it with me: “Living in a police state is bad no matter who’s running it”.
I'm just imagining the poor intern at the NSA having to sit in a dimly lit room with an array of 64 x 64 monitors mounted on a wall, watching the O-faces of thousands and thousands of fat, balding, middle age men for hours straight.
Capitalist profit motive strikes again. The invisible hand expands tech and the visible hand keeps making tech worse.
People usually respond to this by saying that it would be absurd to suggest the company did this for its own benefit, when anyone who engineers knows these are often caused by revising design to minimize costs... and increase profits.
Yes, because governments are so restrained in their use of propaganda.
What it is is the consequence of the power existing. 200 years ago nobody was arguing about how to hook people in the first 0.2 seconds of video, but it's not because nobody would have refused the power it represents if offered. They just couldn't have it. It's humans. People want this power over you. All of them.
The system incentivizes seeking power by consolidating financial wealth. It doesn't have to be that way & this will eventually become obvious to everyone.
To be fair, it is basically one and the same. I doubt most people railing against capitalism are actually against private property. They probably dislike corporatism which only exists as an extension of the government. Very very few of us voluntarily gave up our right to hold people personally responsible for their actions, but this is forced on everyone on behalf of business interests. The corporate vale is materialized from government alone.
> I doubt most people railing against capitalism are actually against private property. They probably dislike corporatism which only exists as an extension of the government.
I really don't know. In my experience, it can about private property when talking about housing, it is about markets when talking salaries and work conditions, and it's just about having no idea of what capitalism even is and just vaguely pointing at economics the vast majority of the time.
"Capitalism" can be safely replaced with "the illuminati" or "Chem trails" in the vast majority of complaints I hear and read and the message would ultimately make as much sense. There's not a lot of how or why capitalism doesn't work, but by God there sure is a lot of what it seemingly does wrong.
Just because you don't know what capitalism is, doesn't mean other people do not know.
Just because you only read sources from capitalist media platforms doesn't mean there isn't a lot of "how" or "why" capitalism doesn't work.
My main message was about the profit motive incentivizing the creation of addictions for the profit of tech companies. The invisible hand may expand the development of tech, but the visible hand needs to make people addicted and unhappy.
Think a little before you speak, please. Or read a little more.
As bad as things are, the excesses of capitalism pale in comparison to the excesses of communism or fascism. If you have a better system, please present it to the class.
Capitalism is known to have killed multiple billions world-wide.
Nearly all of the poor countries on earth are capitalist. World war 1 was a war of capitalist reorganization, Fascism was a capitalist economic system, therefore WW2 was initiated by capitalist nations. Nearly all wars being fought today are all fought by capitalists on both sides of the conflict. The poorest countries on earth are capitalists. Drug cartels are organization of drug manufacturing and transporting capitalists. Capitalist nations are proven to be the most corrupt countries on earth.
Capitalism has a vested interest in making nations poor for the sake of maximizing profits in resource extraction. Capitalism has waged more war and caused more destruction than any system before it and its only been around for ~400 years.
You really want me to believe that the system that makes money from doing heinous shit is good?
Look into the primary sources behind the things you believe to be true about communism. Many, many are very shaky and were just "cold" war propaganda pieces. I've done exactly that to come to my conclusions.
What I know to be communism, through research, and reading of primary sources, is just the natural conclusion of the democratization of society. People controlling the production they need through councils that they themselves organize into a peoples state.
This post perfectly proves my point, to which you replied "You are displaying your ignorance with pride.".
"Fascism was a capitalist economic system" or "Capitalism has waged more war and caused more destruction than any system before" are utterly ridiculous, evidently false statements. The only way you can ever say these things with a straight face is if you don't have the least idea of what capitalism even is.
I think you may be very shocked when you find out that you are wrong.
Fascism was an ideology developed by capitalist industrialists, specifically steel trusts in Germany. But had its birth amongst financiers in Italy. Henry Ford was a big proponent of fascism. Fascism did not undo any private property relations, it simply was a single party capitalist state. Ownership of companies was still private. If you were not ideologically or ethnically in line your property was taken away and given to someone who was. Any elimination of property rights specifically only applied to the political opposition, which is in line with repressive capitalism, not with socialism.
The control of market dynamics and labor was for the purposes of war and murder, not an ideological component of fascism. A similar thing happened in all countries who were at war: rationing, price controls, labor allocation, etc, but still capitalists.
The axis was specifically an anti-communist alliance through the anticomintern pact. They specifically wanted to uphold private property.
The ONLY reason that one German country had socialist in their name was to fool the masses. It was to appeal to the masses.
WW1 and WW2 were both started by capitalism. And most wars on going right now, feb 2026, are waged by capitalists factions on both sides.
The figures of death attributed to communism are widely known by academics to be absurdly and unscientifically inflated. The black book of communism is not considered history by historians. The gulag archipelago is not considered history by hostorians.
Why dont you see the black book of capitalism anywhere? There are millions of excuses for every death under capitalism. But there are billions of deaths under capitalism... and counting.
You may think I got here through some sort of unhinged bias or just wanting to go against the grain, but no, I got here through asking myself all these questions sincerely and researching them.
Do you mean "private property" or "personal property"? These are not the same thing, and those who want to scaremonger about non-capitalist modes of production like to conflate the two.
You've never heard someone say "under communism, private property isn't allowed, so you have to share a toothbrush?" I heard that nonsense all the time growing up.
Your toothbrush and clothing are personal property. The family farm is private property.
Corporatism is not a thing. Capitalists hold fundamental power over society, they collectively are the state.
They own the things the rest of the people need to survive. Assuming you are a worker/proletariat: Can you survive right now, today, without interacting with a capitalist entity?
Can you make your living as in food, money, housing, etc, right now, solely from your own property? Statistically not. Capitalists own most of what you require.
"Corporatism" is just capitalism. Capitalists use their media platforms to say the government oppresses them equally to us. When it is proven time and time and time again that they have almost total control and influence over the government.
And you buy the narrative.
There is no "pure capitalism", bro. Capitalism will ALWAYS evolve into this. It's baked into the rules. This is very plain to see.
Go to any main news platform, of any country, on the side of any political wing, of any other capitalist nation on earth and type "corruption" in the corresponding language. You'll be met with a flood of articles.
I am against private property of production, because I know the people who need said production can also democratically run it.
> Can you make your living as in food, money, housing, etc, right now, solely from your own property? Statistically not. Capitalists own most of what you require.
You can't survive from your own property in a communist society either because the state own all of it. Instead of power accruing in the hands of a few capitalists, it accrues in the hands of a few politicians/dictators. What's the fundamental difference here? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
This is false and not at all what I have researched and back as a communist.
In a communist society YOU control production through democracy. The whole point is for the people to be their own governing force. That is why communists mention "state control", but another, ultra important aspect that is conveniently not mentioned by capitalist propaganda, is council democracy.
You are your local state. You and your neighbors organized in a council form your local state.
You and your neighbors make sure that no single individual or minority controls your production.
YOU and your neighbors form your own executive, legislative and judicial branches.
This is in reality what communist literature is about. The american mind cannot comprehend democracy, i swear.
And if system were to results in a small group of people holding power and using production to make money, well, that would a capitalist system. Words have meaning.
Democracy is not based on trust, like the political system we have right now. Don't trust me, do your own god damned research. Don't trust millionaire connected politicians either. And don't trust capitalist media either. Democracy is based on control.
Well adjusted people so not want that power over other people
It's sociopaths and narcissists which want it.
And as Atlas667 pointed out, it's also a direct consequence from a capitalistic world view, where it has replaced your morals.
This is not in relationship to state propaganda. Multiple things can cause abhorrent behavior, and just because we've identified something as problematic doesn't inherently imply that other unrelated examples are any better.
"Well adjusted people so not want that power over other people"
There are certainly well adjusted people that would like to fix things they feel are inefficiencies or issues in their government, especially when those issues are directly related to their areas of expertise. Thinking well adjusted people wouldn't want to be in a position of power is exactly how you ensure that only bad people end up with power.
We've always had sociopaths and narcissists, and if you're looking to "capitalism" as the reason why they exist, you're in out-and-out category error territory, not-even-wrong territory. Now that this power exists to be had, human beings are racing to acquire it. If you think you can fix that by "fixing capitalism" you are completely wasting your efforts.
So if that’s not the answer, what is? Should we just throw our hands in the air and say that technology has defeated our monkey brains, and there’s no going back?
Given that these tendencies are not evenly distributed throughout the population, you can have structures that leverage the large mean to mitigate the worst tendencies of the extreme tails. Given that the natural state of things is that power begets more power, these are harder to build and maintain, but it can be done. In particular, Democracies and Republics are major historical examples of this.
People do have this power right now, they are called capitalists, they are a part of the tech/info/policing industry.
You don't have this control, I don't have this control. It's not humans in general, it's literally the capitalists. Right now, today. Try and "timelessly universalize" that.
It's the people who make money from this who want it.
I would rather that no one particular person or group of people have that much power, and I would rather help organize society to collectively and democratically decide what goes on with this tech but I guess that proudly makes me a communist.
History contains abundant, well-documented cases of ordinary people participating in atrocities without coercion. Most people will act decently in low-pressure environments and will act badly under certain incentives, authority structures, or group dynamics. There is no way to know what a person's threshold is until it's tested, but it can be assumed that most people have a low threshold.
That may be true but I think the unspoken assumption in your comment is that somehow, without capitalism, greed magically melts away. How do you explain the constant extreme rampant corruption in communist and socialist countries over 100 years if not from GREED?
I know that it doesn't. Greed will be ever-present, yes, but that doesn't mean that it's a one-way ratchet. It's something we have to keep fighting against all the time. Greed starts out as a driver of progress, then eventually becomes an impediment to progress. The other constant there is progress! No dam will block a river forever.
The definition of capitalism is the private ownership of production and its use to generate profits.
I think a coerced assumption you may have of capitalism is that corruption is an unintended side effect, but it actually follows from its principles.
How is a society to maintain unmarred democratic institutions when its elements are fundamentally unequal? Put more clearly: How can people have the same amount of political power when one class (capitalist) OWNS the production of what the other class (workers) need?
The mythology of capitalist society paints both them as equals and the state as neutral. This is a tactic to preserve the appearance of a democratic backbone. They afford this mythology because capitalists own the air waves and they have, and can have, the most influence in the state. In fact, due to this fundamental inequality capitalists are, for all practical purposes, capitalists are the state.
Capitalist societies put political power up for auction; Corruption has its highest manifestation within capitalist societies.
Now to your point. Greed will never "magically melt away". Greed can only be controlled through democratic control of what permits greed in the first place.
Communism/socialism isn't about magically doing or undoing anything, it's the science of creating firm and unalienable working class power. It must start with democratic control of production and local peoples councils. Greed will not magically melt away, greed must be constantly cut out by everyone by everyone HAVING the political power to cut it out. This means peoples councils will be convened at the neighborhood level, peoples courts will be manned, not by professional judges, but by rotating locally elected citizens. Council delegates will be bound by law to only, and exclusively, be messengers at higher level councils, etc. This is just a small picture of what democracy is. It is not me to say specifically how, of course, but communism does not involve blindly and powerlessly trusting political candidates, like capitalist society requires.
There is a reason communism is demonized by the people who control our society.
Just another instance of companies participating in the creation of the police state.
These companies do not do this under external pressure from the state, they do this because it benefits and consolidates their power as well.
It's bricks for their castle wall.
Corporations should not be considered a separate entity from the state. Corporations form state power. This doesn't mean they are always in-line with the state, but that they lead the state as a block, as a class, defending their common interests.
The interests of the people who own/control technology, and have the most influence over standards, will make sure you are forced to participate.
And they have always organized society to make sure this is the case. It's not a wacky conspiracy theory. These are just the interests of the people who create and have most influence over tech, and these interests are shared in common amongst most elements of that class. So, this class, the capitalist class, will just plan (conspire) to make it necessary for you to participate.
Viewing tech in this way makes one see that the historic development of tech is not happenstance occurrence, just tech skipping along, unconsciously, into authoritarianism, but as tech being influenced by the interests of the people who have the most influence on its development: those who own it, who are often the same people who determine standards.
The internet was never a free form idea upon which everybody could sway, its a technology owned, controlled and influenced by those who produce it.
They WILL absolutely try to place social/state/labor functions behind this wall of authoritarianism. As they already have, and are currently doing with the growing ban on VPN usage, anti phone rooting measures, anti-"side loading", etc.
It should not be absurd to suggest that the people in power have used, are using, and will use power in their favor.
"War begins to be presented as the heroic alternative, the last hope, the “way out” from the unending nightmare of economic crisis, misery and unemployment. Fascism, the most complete expression of modern capitalism, glorifies war. The filthy sophism “War means Work” begins to be circulated by the poison agencies of imperialism, and filters down to the masses.
...
War is only the continuation and working out of the crisis of capitalism and of the present policies of capitalism. It is inseparable from these, and cannot be treated in isolation. All the policies of capitalist reorganisation, all the policies of Fascism, can only hasten the advance to war. This is equally true of the line of a Roosevelt, a MacDonald or a Hitler. War is no sudden eruption of a new factor from outside, a vaguely future menace to be exorcised by special machinery, but is already in essence implicit in the existing factors, in the existing driving forces and policies of capitalism."
The US and its allies have attacked the currency and the availability of goods for the common Iranian. This is how regime change works. This is what is happening in Cuba as well. You starve and disenfranchise the average person to make regime change by internal bad-actors more successful.
Therefore many citizens protest against their conditions, not against their government. The misconstruing of this reality is intentional and an essential part of war mongering.
We understand this and we are smarter than the BBC thinks we are. Now ask yourself why must young Americans in the armed forces put their lives on the line for this?
reply