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, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!
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)
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.
as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
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).
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
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)
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.
(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)
As an outsider, I'm curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles? It seems every other meme here is hate for liberals. What's the relationship between liberalism and leftism?
Edit: thanks for the responses but unfortunately I don't really understand what you guys are talking about. I needed an ELI5 really. Thanks anyway.
I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
To quote Malcolm X:
The white liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire wester hemisphere. He is the most deceitful, he's like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he is up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way, that even though you see his teeth, you think he is smiling.
All their supposed progress and opposition to capital only reinforces and propels capitalism, alleviating the need for fascism just for a little longer (which arises for the ruling classes when the majority of the population grows disillusioned with their lies, be they conservative or "progressive"). In the end only legitimizing the underlying framework (capitalism), without ever threatening it.
tl;dr: scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
Liberalism has been a weird one to try and tackle in the US today, at least in my friends circle. I’m a leftist through and through, but have friends that still fall into the liberal bucket. But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself. Despite this, they still sometimes take offense to my criticisms of liberals and still feel some sort of ownership over it. So I think as times progress onward, it’s going to get harder and harder to define it, especially with how the US has clouded all of these terms.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself.
This is pretty much the default stance for most people, I believe. The issue, is that without deprogramming the Anticommunist Red Scare Propaganda, and without reading Leftist Theory, this is the endpoint of this position, essentially doomerism.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
This is why it's important for Leftists to constantly agitate, organize, and spread theory. Electoralism is a doomed game, organizing is what's important.
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Aren't liberals leftists though?
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
It was serious, in my head both were just terms for left wing further left than central left but not like extremist left wing.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)
They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.
With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.
To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.
Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.
For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing
Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).
Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!
It appears I have been shown who is the boss.
Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.
I’ll leave my comment up as-is for context.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
This isn't really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a 'natural law'.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to 'liberals' as 'leftist' ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.
Here comes the ramble:
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.
I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
The funny thing is, the US defined liberal is the codified set of ideas, liberalism is just to the left of the median in America. America is that far-right.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
The problem is that you jump straight from Liberal to Revolutionary, there's a spectrum of thought among leftists. Revolution may be correct, but there are schools of reformist thought as well. Additionally, liberals and all those to the right of them are Reactionary, just in varying degrees. A "centrist" would be left of liberalism, ie a Social Democrat or Market Socialist.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
The Democrats are Neoliberal, there's no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.
I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded.
On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.
I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
Fascism is a class-colaborative alliance between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat and lumpenproletariat along nationalist lines to attempt to forcibly return to a less-decayed state of Capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
Correct. Join an org!
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.
Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Beating Trump won't stop the conditions for fascism, only Leftism can. Fascism can only be kicked down the road, until the ratchet effect takes us there anyways, unless Leftists organize.
I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.
You've got the core of it, but not the theory. Try reading Leftist theory! Whether it be Marxist or Anarchist, leftists have been attempting to fix the system and are growing in power.
I’ve said this to you previously, but - I appreciate you.
When I find the ability to tame my ADHD and time constraints a bit more than current, I’ll work on digging into The State and Revolution - because you are kind, and you are thoughtful.
Oh, it's you! I remember! Thanks for the kind words.
For what it's worth, eReaders make reading theory much easier for me, and I also have ADHD. Audiobooks also work for people too, but I like to reread sections sometimes.
Fellow ADHDer here, I'm an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you're looking for but I've found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I'm doing chores and need the stimulation.
Seriously couldn't be more well put.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
No, no and no*
Marx postulated communism from an economic analysis with the goal to improve the economic and political situation of the working class. This is deeply antifascist.
Lenin abolished the tsarist rule and implemented progressive politics like womens rights and ended the criminalization of homosexuality.
Stalin while ideologically and economically not a fascist was staunchly authoritarian, which is a core theme of fascism and he rolled back many of the progressive social policies of Lenin. However authoritarianism is an universal political theme, whether fascist, stalinist, monarchist or even "democratic".
hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of "the people's party", even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don't think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we're here calling totalitarians "fascists" then Marxism is a form of fascism
You don't actually know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. I would suggest you read up on that first.
You're confused on a few fronts, here.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
Fascism is not simply "when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff." It's focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered "fascist" even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism in the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
Enter the term "red fascist," which does indeed redefine some core aspects of fascism to acknowledge the differences in breed of authoritarianism.
Why would Marxism-Leninism count as fascism? What is fascism, in your eyes?
When asked about Fascism, Liberals are Obi Wan. If course I know him... He is me