this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
246 points (96.2% liked)

Lefty Memes

4278 readers
2251 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

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,

as well as 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.

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

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If you kill an oil executive, a new one will take their place. You've gotta go after the company instead, that'll have a more direct impact and be harder to replace, especially if paired with regulation.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That's why you keep doing it. Eventually a chilling/deterrent effect will take hold. It's not like anyone's actually passionate about oil. They can go be apple orchard execs or something idk

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If deterrence worked, there wouldn't be capital crimes in jurisdictions with the death penalty. Or maybe our criminal justice system is just fucked.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

CEOs may be sociopaths but they have a more developed sense of self preservation than your run of the mill murderer so it might be more effective IMO. I say try it and add the death penalty for severe financial crimes like they're doing in Vietnam.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Hey, I'm all for it. Aerosmith had it right - eat the rich!

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is definitely not a hill I want to die on, but there are three axes to deterrence:

  1. Certainty of punishment

  2. Severity of punishment

  3. Celerity (speed) of punishment

Basically you can't just raise one axis and expect anyone to be deterred. So if you just put to death one random exec it's probably not even as effective as, like, slightly maiming a handful. Or cream pie to the face of a hundred. Or a gentle yet stern tap of the wrist of a thousand.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

A very well-thought out counterpoint. Thank you. I did a spit-take on the 'cream pie to the face' at first though...

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

Yep, persistent effort over an indeterminate period. That's what got us into this problem and it is a valid way to get out.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don't mow the lawn one time then call the work done forever.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is that we have a lawn, when we shouldn’t have one in the first place. Instead we really need biodiverse native gardens.

Don't just kill the corps responsible for it, we need regulation and a carbon/pollution tax.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 17 points 6 months ago

More people should say that in casual conversation

[–] hikikoma@ani.social 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Killing billionaires is good for the environment then?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 22 points 6 months ago

I don’t think this can really be argued, the environmental impact of billionaires both directly and indirectly is catastrophic on a planetary level.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

If it's public, graphic, and serves as an example of what these monkeys will do to one who hordes all the bananas, and deters subsequent occurrence of banana-hording; yes.

The alternative is that we can all passively agree that all us monkeys must go extinct.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Absolutely.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 14 points 6 months ago

Look, if your friends don't think the bourgeoise deserve to choke on the money they've stolen from the proletariats' pockets, they're not your friends.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I love the corporations vs. individuals climate debate. On the one hand, you've got those who count on the public's willpower to make massive lifestyle changes. On the other, you've got those who think the government can weather lobbying and public outrage and force big corpos to cut emissions (which will also mean massive lifestyle changes)

Or we can just wait until the climate catastrophe destroys our way of living.

I don't think the system works.

[–] DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Exact scenario playing out in my life right now. The blade I feel I run is between my sanity from acknowledgment of the elephants and basic human interaction.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Even if she is serious, killing a CEO will only replace that CEO with a new one. This doesn't solve the climate crisis.

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 months ago

It reminds me of the discourse around 'x companies are the cause of x% of global emissions'.

Yes, that's true, but they're doing so to meet a demand. We can (and should) take action to regulate these companies and force more environmentally friendly methods of production, but that will have ramifications on costs. Ultimately the most efficient way may be to reduce demand for some goods and services.

I work as a transport planner, for instance, and a huge number of emissions come from cars, but also the built environment (building and maintaining transport infrastructure). If we're going to be serious about dropping emissions, we need to fundamentally change the way we plan and build transport networks, including potentially cutting demand, one way or another.

All this against a backdrop of an incredibly unequitable transport infrastructure; if you hike costs then you knacker the ability of disadvantaged groups to get around for work, but also pleasure. Poor people deserve to be able to go on holiday too.

My general point is that for every smartarse post that says "climate change is easy to stop, all we need to do is cut the head off the snake" neglects to recognise that this isn't a snake of a problem; it's a hydra.

(Blech, melodramatic, but it does wind me up).

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 months ago

Not with that attitude we won't

The thing is that we should keep killing those CEOs until nobody wants to work that position, unless they appease the climate fanatics.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So quirky *holds up spork*

[–] Syn_Attck@lemmy.today 0 points 6 months ago

Not to mention getting her kids put on a list before they're born.

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

I say we start with the best billionaires to send a message to the worst ones that they need to change their shit. So, Taylor Swift?

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

I think T Swizzle would be down for that.