this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
881 points (96.3% liked)
Lefty Memes
6578 readers
1466 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
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.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because we have limited resources and a country definitionally priorities its citizens over foreigners. If it doesn't; then you basically no longer have citizens, you just have inhabitants.
That's some weaselly circular definition you're engaging in there.
Your use of the word "just" implies that having people called "citizens" is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called "inhabitants"; which you're then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven't actually made any kind of case for why it's better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It's kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It's really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
It's an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they're ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
No.... In the analogy they don't eat. That's the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that's the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don't think they, you know, buy things and work?
Please don't erect strawmen after not reading the entire conversation.
I've read the whole thread, how do you think I got down here?
This is what you just said. Can you explain how I mischaracterized it? I feel like I just reworded this sentence pretty directly.
Inhabitant is not analogous to foreigner in my example, perhaps read it again with intention to understand, rather than to rebut.
So you're actually arguing against a straw man then. You've invented this concept of "inhabitant", as something less than a citizen, and not given any actual evidence for it's existence, or valid justification for why it deserves less than a citizen.
If your analogy is based on consumption it makes no sense.
Meanwhile, I could drop eat from mine response and the point stands with a dry place to sit.
My analogy is based on contribution and social contract.
And what is the issue there? Let's prioritize our inhabitants then. It's not like there's not enough to go around.
There's absolutely limited resources, specifically concernin what the government has the capability of handing out.
Unfortunately we have to think about "what's in it for us?" If the answer is another mouth to put on welfare and medicaid then.... Why?...
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
Ah, ok, you're one of those. Might want to change your username
We don't live in a world of abundance, abundance is a goal of humanity, were not there yet; and we don't get there by printing money out of thin air and handing it out.
Billions of dollars is pennies compares what would be required to put the world on welfare, and those billions remove criminals and those preying on.l the generosity of our country.
literally all studies about this make you wrong
You misunderstand, we live in a world that's capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react; because they do not have an abundance of anything.
that would be arguing that i am speaking as if everybody's needs have been met NOW which I am not saying. Don't deliberately misinterpret my comment. Don't pretend that part of why Nigerians don't have abundance is not imperialist colonialism 2.0 wrapped in the flag of freedom, democracy and development.
But that's exactly what a world of abundance means.
Having an over abundance in one part of the world and scarcity in another isn't a world of abundance.
You're so close to realizing wherever humans settled had enough to sustain civilization. It's the plundering, wars, genocides, privatization of national respurces that cause the scarcity.
You do understand that "had" is past tense, meaning that we do not currently have it, right?
and why do you think that is? Not plundering of resources and redistribution of them upwards?
That's a deep hole and I don't know if you'll appreciate it's darkness.
Who's saying to "put the world on welfare"? This conversation isn't about getting things for free from the government, it's about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.
Edit: "preying on the generosity of our country" is hilarious
The initial premis of the argument that I replied to was questioning why people who were born in the U.S. are entitled to something that those who are not born in the U.S. are not.
I'm all for net tax payers entering the U.S. through legal routes. Methods that protect the immigrant from exploitation from employers.
Thanks for clarifying.
Immigrating to the US legally in 2026 is a slow, restrictive, and broken process. Opening it up wouldn't be the end of the world.
I would love reform. Any changes that get smart productive people into the U.S. would only help us.
At the same time dont you feel it harms foreign countries? We're literally brain draining other countries keeping them in poverty or preventing them from developing.
No, I don't feel that way.
Destiny manifested. You're a great leftist.
So you're okay with immigration that builds up our society despite it harming the immigrants home country?
Hmm, maybe you have a point. Oh wait, I know of something that would help reduce those harmful effects!
Open borders
My guy. Open borders go one way, from the poor countries into the rich countries. The poor country opening it's border does nothing.
Next to no one is fleeing to Mexico for economic opportunity.