this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
55 points (71.7% liked)
Lefty Memes
6328 readers
921 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, 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
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" 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 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.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy. Liberalism isn't intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It's a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state. To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.
It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human. All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal. Legitimate authority must protect these rights. Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority. That's the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.
It was the original leftism. While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent. All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.
Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances. Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism. The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies. All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.
It literally is. Here's Wikipedia on the topic.
Pedantry aside, though, liberals have always (and I mean always) batted for capitalism, and this is reflected in literally every political change liberals have been a notable party in (if you have counterexamples, go ahead). Private property rights are an integral part of liberalism as a political philosophy.
PS: Social democracy is a scam, as seen from the ongoing rise of fascism in Europe.
I love how wikipedia is incorrect for the biggest shitlib of lemmynsfw.com, "No no, everyone else is wrong, wikipedia is a leftist lie!"
The actions of governments don't necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you're criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn't imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn't imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
Now you're just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the "means of production". It doesn't reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don't imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. "Generally supported" in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren't essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn't a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn't a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you're liberal.
If we're going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn't make it untrue. You don't speak for all socialists.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you're thinking of personal property. That's your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can't argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that's a contradiction.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they're out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon's ideas.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
See above.
First, these all liberalized; I don't consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it's not exactly the success you're painting it as.
Was answered with
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about "personal property" & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[^unownable], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn't prohibit the right to have property.
Don't know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn't an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
That doesn't explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don't need it.
Again
Lapses from a philosophy don't inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
[^unownable]: those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess
It's that they're not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
If you're not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can't call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can't have liberalism without freedom of religion.
Ywah, libs understand philosophy and read way more political theory way more than those damn commies and 'anarchists'.