this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
500 points (91.5% liked)

Lefty Memes

4352 readers
711 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
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
squid_slime@lemm.ee
500
Every American President (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes even Lincoln. He was brutal with the indigenous Americans just like all his contemporary genociders.

And even on the subject of slavery, he was basically forced into it. He also really hampered radical reconstruction which sought to actually change the power structure, take land from slaveholders and give it to the freedmen... Went way easy on former Confederates and let them slip into (subdued, but still significant) control. He wasn't as bad as his successor in that regard but he's no role model. Read "Black Reconstruction in America" by W.E.B. DuBois if you're interested.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He was an abolitionist before his presidency

Just not something he could realistically do without the civil war

And yes it only happened because after the civil war 90% of the US was free states

[–] xor@infosec.pub 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

he was basically forced into it

you're basically making shit up

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I mean the emancipation proclamation didn't ban slavery, it just banned it in rebelling states by freeing the slaves in those states. It was a year/years later that the ~~21(?)~~ 13th Amendment was signed that actually banned the practice.

Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, he just didn't want the south using them as an army.

[–] xor@infosec.pub 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

he definitely wanted to free the slaves, talked about it and wrote about it extensively, and definitely why we they started the civil war.

his bff was a former slave, even... and just how do you suppose he was supposed to add that 21st amendment before the civil war? you know the president isn't dictator, right? half of congress was the south, at the time... and they were voting pretty heavily in favor of slavery...

members of congress actually beat members of congress to death, in congress, in the lead up to the civil war... while arguing about slavery (in particular about accusations of members of congress owning slaves for raping purposes, rather than their arguments about labor)

[–] RustyWizard@programming.dev 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You both need to stop saying the 21st amendment. Hard to take the rest of your history lessons seriously when you’re saying Lincoln repealed prohibition. It was the 13th amendment.

[–] xor@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago

i just quoted him... i don't have the amendments memorized by number

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He was always ambivalent about abolition. Not a fan of slavery, sure. Maybe. But he made it clear over and over and over again that he would much rather keep the country together than free any slaves if he could.

He also MANY times said he wouldn't even know where freed slaves fit into American society, proposing they be shipped off to some island to colonize so he wouldn't have to deal with them.

It was only at the insistence of his generals that it was a military necessity or they'd lose the war that he freed some of the slaves.

[–] xor@infosec.pub -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

standard nazi bullshit lies

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck are you on about

[–] xor@infosec.pub -1 points 6 months ago

nazi bullshit lies, mainly

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He might have somewhat wanted to, but it wasn't an explicit goal of his until it became strategic to the war effort.

Lincoln before he got elected: no, I'm not coming for your slaves

Lincoln after elected: no, I'm not coming for your slaves

Lincoln during the war: "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them"

Lincoln the moment the British might aid them: "the war is now about slaves and their freedom so Britain won't feel good about helping"

Yes, Lincoln didn't like slavery and thought it was bad for the country, but much like the founding fathers he thought it was on its way out naturally. Without the southern states throwing The Great Tantrum Lincoln would have left the slave issue alone

[–] xor@infosec.pub 1 points 6 months ago

Lincoln during the war: "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them"

i don't think you understand that sentence you just quoted... i know it's a bit weird in phrasing, but it's probably a trap to cite the longer quote, but ignoring the context that he's a politician in the process of convincing people of shit and not every sentence he said was some plain fact and proof of something by itself, in a vacuum

Lincoln before elected: no, I'm not coming for your slaves

i wonder why that was a topic? it's almost as if: slavery was a very big point of contention, and the war and division was brewing for a while and lincoln didn't start the civil war by himself... and so he said some politician-type stuff to get elected and then in fact "come for" the slaves...

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

~~The civil war was started over the economics of slavery, not the cancellation of slavery. The south wanted slaves to count towards votes, but not count towards taxes owed. The north refused to allow that, and they decided that slaves didn't count towards either. And since without slaves the southern states had much lower populations, that dramatically diminished their voting power. That is why the civil war started.~~

~~Edit:I guess you guys missed the whole 3/5ths comprimise~~

[–] xor@infosec.pub 1 points 6 months ago

oh it was aaaaall about that! well thanks for explaining that so well...
it's weird all of the historical documents showing quite a few people were arguing about the morality of slavery... that members of congress came to blows over it and nobody mentioned the secret double secret reason of: it was aaaaall about votes because scubus saw a youtube video about it once....

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is revisionist, false, and stinks of the DotC.

The war was about the South keeping it's slaves, and it's ability to continue to subjugate an entire race of people. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States states that "our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." That only the "black race" is capable of being slaves. And in case you think this could be twisted somehow to support a rally against taxes, it goes on to say "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"

This is the opening volley off secession. It talks about commerce but not about taxes. It doesn't mention counting slaves as votes because they'd won that fight 60 years previously.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What's the doct? And yeah, the south feared the dissolution of slavery but from my understanding that was not what it was about for the north. Hence the 3/5ths compromise.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Daughters of the Confederacy

You realize that the 3/5ths compromise was added in 1787 at the constitutional convention right? That wasn't even remotely at issue during the civil war.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So it would seem. A bunch of the sources I was just googling seemed to confirm what I had learned in school, hence this debate. We were never taught about the dotc though, I take it they were a post war group of propagandists?

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Post war group of propagandists is a pretty good way to put it.

They were responsible for many of the Confederate statues, and a lot of revisionist rhetoric has its seeds with them.

To be clear, they were effective. And the public school system still bears their mark today, actually it's probably getting worse.

The South seceded out of fears of abolition. Full stop. Losing the election in a landslide to a Republican was only the last in a huge pile of straws. Ft Sumpter wasn't even where the fighting started. People had been literally killing each other over the issue of continued/expanded slavery for several years already.

Any source claiming that the South had more nuanced reasons for leaving is either knowingly lying, or has been taken in by a lie.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 6 months ago

You're kinda right, but wording it in the worst way possible

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

The 13th amendment outlaws slavery... mostly

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm afraid he supported at least East Timor genocide. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor, paragraph on American involvement

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 months ago

Dang it...

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Also still alive!

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately this comment is about to age like milk. Last I saw was that he's really not doing well.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

I did a search before I posted... Just in case...

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 6 months ago

Well the country is built on it.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 14 points 6 months ago

misinformation, approximately 13.3% of presidents (13.0% of presidencies) are still alive

[–] S_204@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Murica! Fuck yeah! 👍.