this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
512 points (96.7% liked)

Lefty Memes

4417 readers
717 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)


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So not actually a traitor then, I see.

Linguistics prescriptivism is bullshit.

I've simply pointed out the reality of the siuation

(x) doubt.

Nice to see your bets so hedged. /s

But even if you were correct: Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Linguistics prescriptivism

I don't know what that means.

Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?

The moral judgement is irrelevant here. It makes no difference. "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. Your assumptions are unfounded.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I don't know what that means.

It means claiming that someone "uses a word wrong", referring to a supposed authority on language, rather than acknowledging that a word's usage determines its' meaning

The moral judgement is irrelevant here.

I've not made any moral judgement. I've extrapolated your view of the world and said that I don't want that.

"We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot.

That's simply wrong. There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power. Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?

Your assumptions are unfounded.

I'm claiming the same things of yours.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

means claiming that someone "uses a word wrong"

I haven't done that. I've pointed out that OP's use of the word "traitor" in their phrase "class traitor" has a different meaning to the ordinary use of the word "traitor". I haven't said their use is wrong.

monopolisation of power

We're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about "monopolisation" of power but I'm talking about gaining power over others. I don't know what you mean by "monopolisation" of power. (And I don't care because whatever you mean, it's clear that it isn't important.)

There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power.

But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.

Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?

No? Only in name. I find it odd when people talk about feudalism in the past tense. To me it seems like feudalism never ended.

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

I haven't done that

Yes, you have

gaining power over others

That's what monopolisation of power means.

But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.

Yes, exactly that. That's what democracy's supposed to handle.

To me it seems like feudalism never ended.

There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, you have

I disagree.

Yes, exactly that.

LOL so you believe there is "a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent" people gaining power over others? You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.

That's what democracy's supposed to handle.

LOL

There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.

Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL

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

I disagree.

Well, you're wrong.

You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.

There have been a ton of societies which limited the amount of power individuals could amass.

Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL

Yeah. Feudal property relations are totally the same as capitalistic property relations. No difference whatsoever. Pretty much everyone is still a subsistence farmer. /s

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

Well, you're wrong.

LOL

limited

Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.

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

So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Because that's what you're implying.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm neither saying nor implying that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes you are:

"We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase:

"We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.

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

No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation.

Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation.

You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.

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

Got it, you're refusing to engage.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool.

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