this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
915 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

5745 readers
28 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. 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, and discussion 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)


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.


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" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (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 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Had this convo last night. Friend is confused as hell about what is left/right. Frustrating trying to undo years of doublethink.

The conversation wound up with this: How do you best raise a child? With one parent's word being the only thing to consider like a god? Or with the help of aunts/uncles, siblings, family, doctors, teachers, community, etc, to help them form their own opinion? Then ask yourself why is it that everyone considering themselves "conservative" spends the majority of the time screaming about how each one of those things is the enemy.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I have a terminally racist relative and was trying to explain to her why we should look after refugees. I asked her if her neighbor's house burnt down whether she would invite them inside and offer them some shelter and comfort, and she agreed that "of course" she would. Then I asked about if it was someone from the next street over, and she immediately became hesitant about it. Sometimes I think as a species we just never psychologically evolved beyond living in a tiny village and fearing anyone we don't know personally.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 10 months ago

She saw where you were going. Or there is someone she's racist towards that lives on the next street.

But this is the best way to both keep discussions level headed and root out the real cause of the opposition. Avoid the labels and names and just talk about general ideas, see how far they will go with "hypotheticals" that don't trigger the reactions they've been embedded with. Even better, some street epistemology, often used with religion but it can be for any beliefs. The basic idea is to ask the person about their own beliefs and guide them in reasoning why they think that. It's far more complex than just that, but that's the idea, to let them come to conclusions themselves rather than some debate where their defense will come up and block any more discussion.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also add the word 'capitalism' in there. It's like I don't even get to finish saying the word before the people I'm talking to either zones out or start defending it with: "well there is no better alternative".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

We've tried less democracy and we're all out of ideas!

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

... Doesn't help that it described fascism as well.

I mean that's, like, literally their name

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People really need to read Marx man…

He literally described fascism decades before it was born. He said the contradictions of capitalism would cause people to look for solutions, and a “false” path people would find was that indeed capitalism had to be overcome. But that they had to return to a pre-capitalist life, return to the land and to feudalistic idealisms. Fascist Italy literally had “guilds”…

Marx said these “anti-capitalists” would see value in communist rhetoric, because they agreed with communists half-way. But they missed that the only solution is to move forward. That before capitalism, there were contradictions that inevitably led to capitalism, and it would just happen again.

Fascism is literally miopic anti-capitalism. It’s what happens to actual justifiable dissatisfaction and anger at the system without theory and understanding.

Yes, fascism really does sound like communism. It’s the goal, it’s how it’s born. It SOUNDS like communism, but has none of the solutions or the substance.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have read Marx. I've also read Gramsci in the original Italian.

My point was just that "Fascism" comes from fascio - the binding of individual sticks together to make a stronger whole.

It's literally "Sticks together strong"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Sure, but as others have said, that is just a basic political observation that most ideologies have made. Fascism is, as I said, entirely devoid of substance. Only the appearance of such.

“Sticks together strong” is as much a political statement as “water is wet”.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I honestly don't see how literally all politics don't boil down to "apes together strong".

Some of them have smart apes manipulating the rest to use their strength against their own interest. Some of them have apes going together using their strength to enforce things we don't agree with, like racist tribalism/nationalism. But it's all a matter of people cooperating to enforce and otherwise enable what they think they need to, to meet their goal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Isnt anarchism more scattered and small groups of people fighting one another over power?

Thats what I imagine when I hear anarchism

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And that's very unfortunate that that's the most common perception of anarchism, because all anarchist theory focuses on how cooperation beats competition. The "anarchy" in the name means that nobody has rule over someone else, but rather all members voluntarily help one another because it's the most efficient and safest way of living.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

But what about bad actors? Surely anarchists believe, that there are "bad people" who want personal gain/wealth/possessions by stealing or through fraud for example?

So then there needs to be a (central) authority who can make enforce rules, even if they are trivially "natural" or democratically validated.

And for that authority to do their job, they need authority over other people. The ability to lock a appartment up to investigate a murder for example. Or maybe even search a house of a alleged criminal.

Or is all of that just the capitalistic way of dealing with things and there is an other way? Or do anarchists believe that problems of that kind wont exist in their utopia?

If there is a bad tone, Im sorry, not a native speaker and I am not trying to argue in bad faith.

Edit: Thats kind of the thing about the intersection of anarchism and feminism I find curious. (In my city I see stickers like "feminists for anarchism" or "anarchy: ..., ..., and feministic")

And at the same time feminists want a stronger percicution (sorry) and punishment for sexualized crime, better institutional protection in labour-law and so on. In my view all things that are only achiveable with "more government", or at least better government/laws and certainly not with less government/rules/authorities.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That is a big question which I am sadly not equiped enough to answer adequately, as I have not invested that much time into anarchist works. What I can give is an example from Kropotkin's book "Mutual Aid":

He mentions how in village societies every dispute was treated as a comunal affair. If no resolution could be found, the case was brought to a group of people (can't remember specifically how they were chosen), and they would pass a verdict and resolution. The disputing parties could then either accept the verdict, or they would be excluded from the community. By excluded I mean that they would not enjoy the hospitality and aid of other members, and would thus have to leave the community. So if you are deemed a problematic member and won't change accordingly, nobody would exert power over you, you would just cease to be a part of the community. Obviously if someone got violent, self-defence would be acceptible.

As for feminism, I know that there is a thing called "anarcha feminism", but I don't know any details.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks, sounds interesting altho on first impression it doesn't seem too viable to mee. It reminds me if the "jury" some countries have, where a group of people decide, what to do with a alleged problematic person. Am not too sure thats the best way to do it.

And also the "I am not angry, just disappointed" vibe and love-starving seems a bit odd.

It seems hard to imagine in todays world. But maybe on a local level? In Switzerland we have communal-discussions and votes as local legislation, the other two state powers on communal level are elected. Thats enough politics for most people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Man, it's annoying what characters like Mao and Stalin (as well as America) have done to those words.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

scary socialism coming to give people a better life in general

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Evil Mao almost doubling the life expectancy and having an average growth rate of 7% for decades 😢

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

D-didn't he also destroy the agricultural system in place displacing millions of people and then destroy their cultural heritage? I might have missed a /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (3 children)

We currently live in a post scarcity world. Yes right now. The only reason we have poverty in today's world is that it financially benefits an extreme minority of humans on earth. We currently can provide for everyone and still live the same level of comfort we have now, but imaginary line on graph must go up.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Funnily enough, even the fascists agree. The man who convinced me of that fact, and thus of socialism compared to social democracy, was Jordan "Literally a Nazi" Peterson.

In some rant of his he threw out some factoid to claim that population growth can keep expanding forever because "each new worker produces seven times more resources than they will consume in their life"

Regardless of the literal brain damage it takes to come to that conclusion from that factoid, the actual numbers aren't far off. It's a bit more complicated but the result is the same, a post scarcity society beset by parasites.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

I find it funny that it costs $30k to criminalize a homeless person, and $10k to offer supportive housing. Yet we choose the expensive option.

Same with energy we have solar, and batteries.. Yet we power cars with gasoline, we have hemp yet we make things out of plastics

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hell, the word "union" is such a dirty word in tech that I've literally watched people complain about employee treatment, praise employees empowering others, while saying "I'm against unions in all forms, but (lists what a union is)".

It just goes to show that branding is important. You can list something that people would 100% agree with, tell them it's the bogeyman, and they'll change their mind immediately. Call it something else, and you'll probably have work councils (unions), community support (socialism), and premium health insurance (free healthcare).

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I got some rednecks to almost agree with me about socialism at a party once.

We were outside this quaint little town that was supported almost entirely by a cement factory. People in the town had been working there for three generations. The entire town depended on the factory for its existence. If that factory closed down the town would die.

But the person who makes that decision doesn't live in the town. He doesn't even live in this country. He's just some rich dude in France who can wipe an American town off the map at a whim. Didn't we fight a revolution to stop that sort of thing? Shouldn't the people who do the work have a say in what happens?

I could see the dawning realization in their eyes just before some chud pointed out that was technically socialism and that shut down the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Not technically; explicitly. Not the garbage they've been shoveled down their throats all this time. Real change with real benefits to the workers. But I guess they don't want that for whatever reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I usually just talk about worker and consumer cooperatives and if I have to name an ideology I say Mutualism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In your view, what differentiates Mutualism from Anarcho-syndicalism, and on the other end, from Anarcho-communism?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the goal to use words that won't scare the libs?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Based on @[email protected] 's other comments under this post Mutualism seems to be a label they really identify with, and I was just curious about why. I consider myself an anarchist but don't really read theory, so I guess I'm trying to make sense of the differences in these hyper-specific labels.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

in sweden we have the concept of "folkhemmet" (the people's home) which i like a lot for this reason, it's a big part of why sweden is such a nice place to live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Sweden has something like 20% of housing under housing cooperatives which I like as a Mutualist who doesn't like shareholder ownership or government ownership.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Have you thought about using words like "unions" or "The New Deal?"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Would the apes be together if we had an anarchy? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago

Yes. You should read some basic anarchist theory, it's all about working together.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Anarchism, not anarchy. It's the left wing variety of Libertarian (although the term Libertarian was originally synonymous with anarchism). So ideologies like Syndicalism, Distributism, Georgism, Mutualism, and some forms of Communalism are Anarchist in the economic sense as they don't rely on an authoritarian state owned economic system. This is why I get annoyed when people equate capitalism with free market and socialism with state-ownership when that's actually the authoritarian-anarchist axis. Many anarchist ideologies like Mutualism have a free commodity market, but disallow a capital market.

load more comments
view more: next ›