this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
48 points (79.3% liked)

Lefty Memes

7106 readers
401 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] 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.



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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There is really not much to be said.

North korea, russia praise is destructive.

The critique of those regions is obviously not "pro west" as is evident to anyone with a cell in their skull.

It just wastes all time.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago) (1 children)

This post e.g. hasn't been reported.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/70745437

If you don't report, don't expect action on stuff, but it will now be deleted.

Though it seems more like a rule 6 instead of a rule 2? The DPRK literally doesn't practice imperialism anywhere. Also western information on it is sketchy at best TBH...

Edit: Saw the other recent posts of jankforlife, deleted them and they got a perma.

None of these posts showed up in the reports just FYI.
OFC moderation can be proactive, but that's more work. If you want efficient moderation, do your part, read the rules and report accordingly

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 1 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago) (1 children)

If you want efficient moderation, do your part, read the rules and report accordingly

this is why i was asking you to help me understand how jankforlife and bubblybubbles were posting "truth nukes" because it all looked like rule 5 & 6 violations to me. but to see some of the most egregious of it getting endorsed by the head mod makes it hard to bother putting in the effort to report when so many of those reports get dismissed, and some of them even get a greenshield big thumbs up

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 minutes ago

I was only referring to one post as a truth nuke because it challaged a lot of western leftist misconceptions and was based from a Marxist perspective, it was not an endorcement of the user or any other post.

As you can see I did clean up the mess once was made aware of jankforlife posting stuff like the gloryfication of the DPRK and "ukraine = Nazi" stuff here in this comm...

I agree, they should be banned. There's no reason they should be allowed to share their ideas in leftist friendly spaces.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 24 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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?"

[–] vepr_jako_pepr@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] vepr_jako_pepr@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] vepr_jako_pepr@slrpnk.net 1 points 34 minutes ago

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

[–] maxalmonte14@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Username checks out.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

FR. It's ridiculous to see violating Rule 2 with impunity and not even getting a slap on the wrist.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

But but people who flee the DPRK often describe missing certain elements of community and belonging, finding the capitalist hellscape of south Korea isolating and inhuman for all it's apparent luxuries.

This means Juche is a true realisation of socialism and everyone critical or sceptical of the DPRK government is a fed.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I feel so lucky to have come up on the internet when I did. It was the sweet spot of getting unfiltered news and reports before authoritarian governments and think-tanks started censoring and pumping false information. Back in like 2008, Russian influencers were really saying somethings.

Anyway, I agree.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

I've been on this community for a very long time. I have not seen the thing you're trying to ban. Prove it's a problem first before trying to rally people.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Uh, how about this one, and virtually all of the others posted by Jankforlife?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 minutes ago

That link doesn't work for me, but I looked up the user and have an idea of what they post. Explain why you feel like the post is problematic.

[–] vepr_jako_pepr@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I just scrolled for 2 seconds on the front page, unless they have all been deleted or something in reaction

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

So you saw it in 2 seconds, but between seeing it and copying the link, the post was deleted?

[–] Juice@midwest.social 5 points 20 hours ago

Stop restricting my freedom to self-medicate by making up people to get mad at /s

[–] therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I don't agree.

A wannabe troll that posts really dumb shit that is childishly easy to shoot down is worth their weight in gold.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 13 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

trolls are never worth engaging with, even to shoot them down. that's why they exist. they're the online equivalent to the real life wrecker. they don't exist for any reason but to make community spaces worse to be in. on a lefty community where the point is to foster and encourage organization, this is especially damaging, and i think that's the point of those prolific fascist in leftist clothing accounts around here. what's discouraging, as @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com said, is that they're allowed to just keep coming back

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 20 hours ago

This is a good point. engagement itself will increase visibility. The best way to win is not to play...

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 22 hours ago

Campism is peak leftism (derogatory) wdym

[–] skyline2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Let's say advocating in bad faith. The recent ones have been trolling for responses, and the OP is very combative. Not productive or enjoyable at all.

If someone has a good or funny point to make, and isn't a total POS in the comments, no ban.

[–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club -5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Ban?! Ahh good old freedom I see 🦅 why stop there? Let’s doxx em and teach em a lesson: never force us to think critically.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Too many people, likely including you, use the desire for free and open discussion as a smokescreen to spread misinformation and lies. Worse, we are entering a period of history where well-documented and proven events are being rewritten and erased by bad actors with money. This turns our desire to educate others against us, as the sources of truth are erased and anyone on the fence inevitably ends up finding those new fake sources more credible.

So yes, ban them. After a decent number of warnings about sources and references, they should be banned for spreading bad science. It shouldn’t be instant, but it should happen. You can have an open-door policy without allowing people to scream against your interests.

Do you think old-school socialists, anarchists, and communists just let Pinkertons and FBI agents stay in the meeting and push for bad decisions?

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

The people I see being the loudest and most visible about how "we need to keep ALL speech allowed in every place ever" are almost always the ones getting removed from places because of the insane, dangerous, or just outright incorrect thing they spout.

The last one was a transphobe who got ejected from an aquarium by cops because he decided to follow some trans people around to yell at everyone with children that "the (slur for trans people) are here to r**e your kids" and was screaming about free speech as three security guards literally dragged him out the doors.

Not sure what he expected to accomplish, but these are the people yelling about how they should be allowed to say things on a platform/in a place because it's not literally illegal to say them.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Dope name. I will follow you past the Cardies' lines and back.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

They actually did, in many cases. The best defense against infiltration is democratic decision making and deep roots in the lives and activity of members. Obvs if someone was exposed as an infiltrator with undeniable evidence, they were burnt; but most often that doesn't happen and the infiltrator tries to instigate splits. Infiltrators often move into leadership positions where they can squash dissent. You can't do anything to prevent infiltrators, you can only educate, develop critical thinking and organize democratically.

Some parties even mockingly welcomed their police infiltrators and informants at the beginning of their meetings, because they managed to neutralize the effect of infiltrators by making it easier for members to speak up, and have the observations and concerns of members lead to tactical shifts in the org. Your approach would shut down dissent because, as you've demonstrated here, you reactively paint anyone who voices a dissenting opinion as a bad faith actor. Your whole attitude is a siege mentality that sows division and paranoia, it is a short, straight road to sectarianism and authoritarian leadership.

Guess what? Wreckers can and will always make the case that freedom and democracy aren't being observed, some entryist tendencies even use this as a tactic, if not a strategy. The answer is to be more open and considerate, so that when such concerns are brought up in bad faith, members shut them down as unproductive and impractical.

Do some practical work rather than fighting ghosts online.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I grant you, I have my walls up more today than I did ten years ago, but if someone proves me wrong with good data, then I accept that. I just scrutinize my opposition more than my allies, which could be a flaw, but if I’m changing my outlook, I want it to be because of facts, not propaganda.

Very cool that some of the old-school meetings let the infiltrators stay. I honestly didn’t know that. But it’s harder to make that tactic effective in an online environment. The stakes are lower and higher at the same time because you can disarm them in person. Here, they can send people down pipelines that they may never come back from.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 16 hours ago

Its def true what you say about online spaces. And sorry to hear that exposure to these conditions have lead to you putting your "walls up". Sorry if I was too quick to judge, its so easy to forget that a lot of well-meaning leftists feel really threatened online, esp from aggressive ultralefts, "Tankies", etc.,

I'm not real concerned with ideological struggle, my reading of history is that this stuff works itself out as conditions become more clear and the class becomes more organized. Like, I def try to educate people, and I think people who are so severely "radicalized" are usually stuck in online echo chambers, which conditions people to experience an ick response when encountering this or that talking point. I think its probably unhelpful to associate everyone who glazes the CCP as a Russian agent or whatever, esp since doing so is a structural advantage to the ruling class capitalists, as it divides workers along lines that are, imo, pretty abstract.

the best way to get people to chill is ask about what kind of work they are doing IRL, like are they in a book club, or a political sect/party, do they go to protests, etc., that will usually tell you whether someone is actually salvageable or not. I know so many people who started off having a lot of "Tankie" sympathies, myself included, who eventually chill, and its because they start doing work in their communities. A random young person who decided that "more left = more good" isn't doing as much harm as certain youtubers and streamers who have hundreds of thousands of followers and who are basically paid to be left opportunists.

I'm very adamant that ideas don't spread like "memes", in the Richard Dawkins sense, like person to person. Most people dont get infected with bad ideas by just being exposed to them. Ideas spread via hegemony, which means people with political and economic power control the systems in which ideas spread, and exert indirect control over the masses via these social structures. So attacking/banning some random tankie online does very little. The fact is, social media algos identify people with left-wing sympathies and then feed us deranged, ultraleft content creators, while the algos also identify political moderates and feed them right wing punditry. People believe ideas that validate their own lived experiences, and the fact that peoples experiences are validated by ultraleftism/Stalinism/left authoritarianism is a structural problem that stems from lack of political education and hegemony.

So imo its better to try and connect with people, which can be hard cuz some people are hostile no matter what, but in that case we just move on and try educating someone else, and try to keep it cool. If someone has a spicy "take," it could be partially because they, as I think we all tend to do, get some kind of stimulation/validation from having people argue with them. Its usually better to ask questions, take notes, and do a little research. But like you said, this is easier in real life organizing than online where attention spans are nil.

I do think its more interesting to be like "why do you believe that?" Ask for some evidence, and if they provide it, maybe ask where they first encountered it

I believe that a miniscule minority of these ultralefts/Tankies are actual bad actors. There is plenty of valid reason to adhere to certain ideas -- some people are a little contrarian, the soviet union and ccp amassed a great deal of influence, both direct and indirect; as well as so many intellectuals who can be very convincing with their arguments. Most tankies are just referencing arguments of Rockhill/Furr/Losurdo, and if you've never encountered these academics their ideas can seem totally bonkers. But if you read them, even if we criticize them, and we should criticize everyone and everything, especially ourselves, its clear why their ideas have so much purchase among ultralefts and apologists. imo the key isn't to win a debate, although I love a good debate, but to initiate new avenues of criticism for people to begin questioning our own ideas.

Or at least thats my take