this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

6991 readers
2 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, discussion and agitprop/stuff that's better fit for a poster than a meme go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme. Please post agitprop here)


0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility


(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)

We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.

We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.

When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.


0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms


When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart

  • ofc => OFC
  • af = AF
  • ok => OK
  • lol => LOL
  • bc => BC
  • bs => BS
  • iirc => IIRC
  • cia => CIA
  • nato => Nato (you don't spell it when talking, right?)
  • usa => USA
  • prc => PRC
  • etc.

Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengists) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't irrationally idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

As an outsider, I'm curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles? It seems every other meme here is hate for liberals. What's the relationship between liberalism and leftism?

Edit: thanks for the responses but unfortunately I don't really understand what you guys are talking about. I needed an ELI5 really. Thanks anyway.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Because the last 400 years of human history basically has been liberals stabbing leftists in the back.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I needed an ELI5 really.

Liberals essentially cover for both capitalists and fascists. See, capitalist and fascist ideology are very unpopular on their own, so liberals come up with all kinds of ways to pretend that rich people owning everything is good for everyone (capitalism) or pretending that more police repression means more safety (fascism).

Liberalsm essentially acts as the pretend-friendly "facade" ideology of this unholy trio - so yes, it's simply coherent for leftists to despise liberalism.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

To quote Malcolm X:

The white liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire wester hemisphere. He is the most deceitful, he's like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he is up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way, that even though you see his teeth, you think he is smiling.

All their supposed progress and opposition to capital only reinforces and propels capitalism, alleviating the need for fascism just for a little longer (which arises for the ruling classes when the majority of the population grows disillusioned with their lies, be they conservative or "progressive"). In the end only legitimizing the underlying framework (capitalism), without ever threatening it.

tl;dr: scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah, ok, but I'm still voting for Isildur in November. He may not be perfect, but he's better than Sauron. Besides, who else am I going to put my faith in? A bunch of stupid hobbits? Get real.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Are you really trying to meme in a 3rd party candidate push? Really?

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

See: Emmanuel Macron. Liberals would rather ally with nazis than leftists

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The very last line is redundant. If you don't know by now what the critical role fascism plays in the liberal order is, I don't know what to tell you.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you must be fun at parties

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, I'm not. And yet people still invite me to theirs.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You might just be the resident clown.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

One of many. And we do it for free, too.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.

And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.

I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.

I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.

But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.

Here comes the ramble:What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.

I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.

The funny thing is, the US defined liberal is the codified set of ideas, liberalism is just to the left of the median in America. America is that far-right.

Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.

The problem is that you jump straight from Liberal to Revolutionary, there's a spectrum of thought among leftists. Revolution may be correct, but there are schools of reformist thought as well. Additionally, liberals and all those to the right of them are Reactionary, just in varying degrees. A "centrist" would be left of liberalism, ie a Social Democrat or Market Socialist.

I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.

The Democrats are Neoliberal, there's no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.

I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded.

On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.

I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.

Fascism is a class-colaborative alliance between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat and lumpenproletariat along nationalist lines to attempt to forcibly return to a less-decayed state of Capitalism.

I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.

Correct. Join an org!

But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.

Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!

What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?

Beating Trump won't stop the conditions for fascism, only Leftism can. Fascism can only be kicked down the road, until the ratchet effect takes us there anyways, unless Leftists organize.

I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.

You've got the core of it, but not the theory. Try reading Leftist theory! Whether it be Marxist or Anarchist, leftists have been attempting to fix the system and are growing in power.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I’ve said this to you previously, but - I appreciate you.

When I find the ability to tame my ADHD and time constraints a bit more than current, I’ll work on digging into The State and Revolution - because you are kind, and you are thoughtful.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Oh, it's you! I remember! Thanks for the kind words.

For what it's worth, eReaders make reading theory much easier for me, and I also have ADHD. Audiobooks also work for people too, but I like to reread sections sometimes.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Fellow ADHDer here, I'm an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you're looking for but I've found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I'm doing chores and need the stimulation.

[–] skulbuny@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Hell yeah a fellow adhd anarchist

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Not who you replied to, but I've spoken with them before. They haven't read much theory at all, if any, hence the recommendations last time. I'm sure they will appreciate your recs as well, they aren't a committed Marxist or anything.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

How can the world become more altruistic and smarter when the hard right is actively destroying our public education system and right wing media causes stochastic terrorism with zero accountability?

Humanity isn't getting better. We are seeing the final results of secularization, the end goal of a godless world where all that was once sacred are now open season for mockery and destruction. And even worse is that so much of the left is actively to blame for this.

None of you will get it, you will just blanket downvote because you cannot grasp that religion has a necessary place in human culture and the social chaos we have now is partially caused by the mockery of an institution that has literally held together human society for more than two and a half thousand years of human history.

[–] zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Apples and oranges. You can have fascism with any political system. The overuse of tankies is a indicator that the accusing party doesn't really understand that.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

No, you can't. When a Marxist becomes a red fascist they stop being a Marxist and become a liar.

[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

No they take the ring for themselves and this is how we get center-left authoritarianism.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

goddamn if leftists spent 1/100th of the time they invested on hating liberals into fucking doing anything productive we'd live in a utopia.

never seen a greater example of pissing and moaning instead of doing something about it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Leftists are building up political parties like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, volunteering for Mutual Aid networks like Food Not Bombs, or resisting ongoing genocide, like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Liberals just have to sit on their thumbs and support the status quo, Leftists have to do the hard work of actually building up dual power and organizing. These people also are allowed to meme on the internet.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Pfft, the same leftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?

Get outta heeeeere

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Meanwhile leftists: "Make sure you don't vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better!"

[–] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Exterminating Gazans makes things better?

Maybe read the meme again.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

When has voting kept fascists from power?

[–] Technofrood@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Aren't liberals leftists though?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

No. Leftism is primarily defined by support for a socialist economy. There is not a single liberal on the planet that would support socialism.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.

[–] Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.

With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.

To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.

Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

This isn't really true, even with being extremely vague.

Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a 'natural law'.

US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.

Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to 'liberals' as 'leftist' ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.

[–] Technofrood@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing

Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).

[–] Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!

It appears I have been shown who is the boss.

Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.

I’ll leave my comment up as-is for context.