Lefty Memes
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
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] Try to use alt text or image descriptions to allow for greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We encourage 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.
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.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Sexual assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
view the rest of the comments
Does that extend to other countries like Cuba, Vietnam, or China? Also, what does "praise" entail, exactly? If someone posts misinformation about a country to make it look worse, and I correct it, does that constitute "praise?" If I oppose taking military (or economic) action against a country, is that the same as supporting said country?
If I were to say, "The DPRK does not force everyone to get the same haircut," is that acceptable? How about, "The largest military exercise takes place every year on the Korean DMZ where US forces practice bombing and invading the DPRK, as they did before in an extremely destructive conflict, and so, domestic policies aside, their hostility towards the US is understandable?"
Cuba and China aren't a right wing neoliberal oligarchy like Russia is.
Is North Korea neoliberal?
The statements in the last paragraph are reasonable, they are just truthful, they are not trying to divert effort towards dictatorship, just contextualise the world, it is easy to note the difference in my opinion
But what benefit does constant refutation have really, the individuals in leninist dominated regions are sufficiently supported by their support under the conception of the international proletariat, they are not intrinsically members of a nation and the support of that nation does not translate into their liberation.
That is what's traditionally known as "The National Question" and it's a lot more debatable and nuanced than you give it credit for.
Let's take the example of Ireland, which was much discussed by various Marxists historically. The movement for Irish independence was not inherently socialist, and the resulting state was still a capitalist system. It was defined more along the lines of nationality than class. However, under the existing system, Ireland had been horribly exploited and abused by the English, and so, this raises the question of whether socialists ought to lend support to such a movement, even though it is not ideologically pure. This is, of course, not something that is specific to Ireland.
Practically speaking, many struggles for independence have historically been more national in character. Frantz Fanon, for instance, was one Marxist who argued strongly for supporting such national liberation movements, observing that oppressed cultures can be stifled in psychological and cultural development because all they can think of is to be free of foreign control. Furthermore, the disparity between the rich and the poor of a colonized country may be less than that of the disparity between colonizer and colonized, and therefore an alliance along class lines can be permissible. Only after removing the pressing outside problem does internal class conflict emerge (and with it class consciousness), and until then it is unreasonable to expect the proletariat of a colonized country to recognize common cause with the proletariat of a colonizing country, especially if said proletariat does not emphatically support decolonization.
In general, this idea that "everyone is included under the conception of the international proletariat" moves away from practical, materialist questions and towards abstract, idealist principles. The national question is very much a relevant and important question in the modern day. Yes, we can all say, "I support the liberation of the Iranian proletariat just like the proletariat of every country" but one person might "support Iranian liberation" through bombing the shit out of them, while another might support leaving them alone and letting them deal with their government on their own, in their own time.
Eventually and ideally, socialists are broadly agreed that in time national distinctions will fade away and become unimportant and irrelevant. However, this must be done voluntarily. If the oppressed are expected to give up their cultural or national identities in order to receive support from socialists in oppressor countries, than this expectation is, and will be seen as, just another foreign imposition.
the national identity is their tie to their local oppressors, they are not close to it one bit There is nuance in many things, even dead ends
That's not always true. There are plenty of cases where a "wealthy" person from a colonized country is able to get an education, which they then returned with committed to liberation. If you actually look into the histories of former colonies, you will often find such figures. Like I said, in colonized countries, the "rich" may be not so different from the poor, and that difference pales in comparison to the gap between them and the colonizers. In any case, trying to impose the same framework to every country regardless of the actual material conditions doesn't really make sense.
If Irish independence should not have been supported on the basis that it was a national movement, and therefore only tied the Irish to their Irish oppressors, if decolonization of India was pointless because it only left Indians under the thumb of Indian oppressors, then does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine? If Ukraine wins the war and remains independent from Russia, then will the war have been pointless because it was a nationalist effort rather than an internal class war, and only leaves Ukrainians under the thumb of Ukrainian bourgeoisie instead of Russian bourgeoisie?
Just because the nationalists claim working class aesthetics, it doesnt change anything, this hypothetical educated individual is capable of betraying the working class with nationalist politics, and to say that applying the same brush to different regions is naive is just to provide room for the true naive statement that those "unreported" regions are better suited for nationalism.
And you assumed my position on ukraine without asking, or in fact the general anarchist stance. Anarchists do not support ukranian nationalism despite the common desire between anarchists to prefer to support individuals in the ukranian nationalist supported region.
But it is not always true, and I hope that anarchists develop ties across the nationalist drawn borders. There are clearly wonderful people squandered in the russian region. Please do not mistake the brave individuals in organisations such as "solidarity collectives" for idiots rather than people forced by the ukranian nationalists into allying with the ukranian nationalists under their circumstance. In any case they clearly try to maintain seperation if you follow their efforts and if you would analyse the situation outside of a big money news corp line, it is clear that the choice to shoot and bomb the incoming soldiers is sensical, despite their class interest.
That then does not make those people nationalists, and people in less stressed theoretical circumstance absolutely should not propose nationalism in their name. And I do not like your line of singling out ukraine to this as to slyly construct a racist strawman.
Well maybe they could be less attached to their homes and move, or rally elsewhere and return, but it is not silly to be attached to a loved environment.
Anyone is capable of betraying the working class. Also this isn't a "hypothetical" individual, examples inclide Ho Chi Minh, Sun Yat Sen, Thomas Sankara, etc. In my opinion, nationalism does indeed have a different character in undeveloped, colonized countries than it does in developed, oppressor countries, because there are legitimate aspects of national development that are important to undergo. Once those things have been accomplished, nationalism becomes nothing but chauvanism.
I, in fact, asked, "does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine?"
Huh. So what you're saying is that it's sensical to lend support to a common cause of repelling foreign occupation, rather than, or at least before, engaging in internal class conflict.
This flies completely in the face of your dismissive and oversimplified approach to the National Question, which is precisely why I brought this question up. It seems then, that in Ireland, it could by the same logic be reasonable for Irish socialists to have focused on repelling English occupation, in India, for Indian socialists to have focused on the same, etc. Of course, this is not necessarily the case in every circumstance, but this demonstrates very clearly that the topic is complex and deserves critical examination.
If an Irish socialist lends support to an Irish nationalist movement for the sake of repelling the English, does that make them an Irish nationalist? The distinction seems somewhat semantic. I have no problem saying that one should only "lend support" to national movements (in some situations), rather than "being a nationalist" if you're allowing that distinction.
I have literally no idea what on earth you're talking about. What strawman? What racism? This accusation is a complete non sequitor.
I don't recall saying that it was. Nor do I recall calling anyone an "idiot" for that matter. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said that isn't really there.
Username checks out.