this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
542 points (92.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

6788 readers
1360 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] 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.



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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tja@programming.dev -3 points 1 hour ago

Microwave pizza? You have two hours to get me a gourmet truffle caviar pizza, or I'll eat a bowl of shit!

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago

DNC: "That's it, our candidate now supports the trans genocide too!"

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.

In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.

More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.

So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.

In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.

What am I missing?

Edit: typos swype errors missing words

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

you are missing all the other issues that were swirling around her as a candidate, but may have been swallowed, up until she double tapped her self on live tv backing a genocide and the wealthy that are currently sacking the nation, after the dnc attempted to push biden again who was also for the same reasons not popular AND doing it so late that they could push to skip a primary.

from a party that is doing its best to help the right while thinly claiming ignoreance.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 14 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

DNCs are most certainly not on the left, they never were, i dare say it they are REPUBLICAN rejects. aside from a few of them. center right is the parties main stance on most things. They are the defense while the gop is the spear. its too keep minority groups(women, pocs, lgbtq) from gaining significant support and power and overtaking the party from the status quo.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's not all Democrats though. Unfortunately the Democrats in charge are the absolute worst of the bunch.

[–] adminofoz@lemmy.cafe -3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Its not all democrats... brought to you by the same group who produced hits like "its not all white people" and "its not all cops"!

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

One of these three is not like the others: oh, right, one of them is an entire fucking class of people who don't get to choose their skin tone at birth. Shut the fuck up with that. Cops and politicos get to choose where they stand. The fuck, precisely, do you expect people to do about the color of their skin?

[–] adminofoz@lemmy.cafe 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

My issue isn't with white people, my issue is everytime someone accurately identifies an issue, there is always someone in the comments with the "its not all X..." except 95% of the people are not saying its all of them. It's a distraction.

Your comment proves exactly what im getting at you got so upset that I suggested white people have some issue that you didnt stop to question if you even understood what I was saying. Im not saying white people are inherently bad at birth. I never even said anything close to that.

We need to be able to say democrats have a genocide issue. Full stop.

White people have a racism problem. Full stop.

Cops have an accountability problem. Full stop.

Politicians have a lobbying issue. Full stop.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 14 minutes ago)

Checking on your comment history, you seem like a reasonable person, with whom i probably agree on many issues. I agree with nearly everything you have said. However, since i know you're american, just like me, allow me to try to give my perspective on why your statement on white people, writ-large, is problematic:

Every single person on earth is hardwired to discriminate against "the other". You, me, Trump and <insert person you don't find reprehensible here>. This instinct toward petty tribalism is the single greatest challenge we currently face as a species (aside, perhaps, from the fact that we're allowing industrial capitalism to actively boil our planet).

Can you not see how the unmeasured response of saying "people with this color of skin have this problem" is, inherently, not just problematic, but actively defeats the purpose of what you're trying to say? This isn't the same thing as a positive statement like "black lives matter". Yes, of course "all lives matter", but clearly the fact that black lives matter needs to be explicitly pointed out. However, saying that "black lives matter" is not claiming anything negative about any person based on an immutable trait.

Consider the following statements common here in the US, each of which is something you should find reprehensible. In each case, consider the immutable trait, and what libelous problem is being inherently associated with that group of people:

  1. "Mexicans/Colombians have a drug problem"
  2. "The Chinese have a genocide problem"
  3. "Black people have a crime problem"

For each of these, a portion of the people with that immutable trait definitively do have that problem. There are Mexican and Colombian cartels. The Chinese government is perpetrating a genocide against an ethnic minority. Some black people are criminals. However, when you paint with such a wide brush, you don't just perpetrate discrimination against the whole group of people who don't get to choose where they were born, or the style of their governance, let alone the color of their skin. You actively alienate any people in each group who might agree with the existence of a problem, and you also ignore any context which shows the greater, actual problem:

  1. The systems of drug regulation have failed.
  2. Dictatorial regimes perpetrate genocides as easily as signing a piece of paper.
  3. Crime is a problem everywhere, regardless of skin tone, as are its underlying causes of poverty and lack of opportunity.

Obviously, each of those earlier statements (especially the one about black people. That one hurt to write) is deeply flawed, and utterly unproductive. Anyone painting an immutable trait as having a specific problem (aside from genetic problems) is inherently engaging in that same alienation, that same othering, as the people they find so reprehensible. Everyone has a moral duty to work toward ending the issues which plague our civilisation, but saying "you have a racism problem" not only misses the point entirely, but actively makes the problem worse.

I have no problem with calling out discrimination against a group of people, but making a statement like "men have a domestic abuse problem" is inherently unproductive and problematic, and sounds like nothing but picking a fight. "There is a serious problem with white people discriminating against people of different skin tones." Vs. "White people have a racism problem. Full stop."

In fact, I wouldn't even take issue with the statement "We have a racism problem caused by white people". Or "among white people". That's still painting with a wide brush, and is still problematic, but it isn't directly implying that every single person with white skin is perpetrating racist acts.

Anyone engaging with the democratic party must contend with the fact that the leaders of the party are actively abetting genocide. But the fact that you were born with white skin does not imply that you need to engage with the problem of racism. EVERYONE needs to engage with the problem of racism, and bringing an immutable trait into it to call people out is inherently problematic.

[–] meep_launcher@sh.itjust.works 22 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Former liberal here. I always felt I had a more wonkish bent, that pragmatism needs to be more front and center in politics.

But if I'm now in the leftist camp, it's not like Dems are going to go anywhere but the way of the whigs if they don't take some actual stances. They've lost all imagination. You can't win on damage control.

[–] astropenguin5@lemmy.world 15 points 12 hours ago

At this point the wonkish pragmatism is that they need to be more progressive and actually take stances on shit. It's clearly what works.

It's just that at this point the DNC doesn't care about winning anymore

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 38 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

And the dnc trash is also pushing moderates.

We don't want fucking moderates! We don't want more status quo losers afraid to rock the boat and gasp actually improve the citizens' lives.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 1 hour ago

Tell that to primary voter they seem to disagree with you.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 13 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

moderate = centrist = corporate slave

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

More like "willful corporate minion"

[–] Smeagol666@crazypeople.online 9 points 6 hours ago

"Willful corporate whores"- FTFY. (no shade to actual prostitutes, who's business transactions are way more honest than democrats)

load more comments
view more: next ›