[French writer Anatole France is drawn wearing a flowery tie]
The law,
in its majestic equality,
forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
-Anatole France
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!
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
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.
Why are you so hostile? I'm being sincere. I'm walking through what you said so that I'm sure I understand. I asked you to say more, and you did, and I just want to confirm I understood it. You don't need to come in so hot.
I didn't mean obtuse like you're intentionally doing that. But I asked you a question and you answered it with another question that described what you were presumably talking about in the negative. Like I have to figure out your meaning by trying to suss out what you dont mean. Thats what I meant by obtuse. If I "got all that" its because I took great care reading and trying to understand your comment. No one else who responded to you bothered to give a damn about your meaning.
You clearly have no clue what my philosophy is. To be clear, I am someone who has read many theory books, and understands them. And yes, I am a Marxist. But I dont think reading books solves the ideology problem you are alluding to.
Reading theory is something that leftists engage in because we want to change ourselves, and we do this by learning to understand facts. There is lots of leftists that just substitute a new ideology, but I try to keep myself honest. There is no author I've read, no org I've joined that I haven't openly criticized, while working to improve the theory or the org.
So when leftists say to "read theory" I think they mean "you should work to improve yourself" which is nice but its a value judgement, it's more idealism. If I'm doing certain kinds of work with people, then yes I need us to be on the same page with our strategies, tactics and definitions. But I dont usually tell people to read theory, I usually just quote/explain the theory in want them to understand. If we can't do that, then imo we dont actually understand it either. More idealism, someone "should" do this or that. Thats not leftism, leftism isnt a social club, it is the struggle.for liberation.
My leftism is essentially practical. I believe that people learn by doing with other people, and when people do new things with new people it changes things in the individual and in the objective world. All the books that I've read, if you really condense Marx into a phrase, that is it. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it".
In my experience a leftist is someone who does the work of liberation, not someone who has read certain books and says certain things a certain way at certain times. When people do the work they often read the theory. Sometimes when people read the theory they do the work, but I'd rather start with the first person than the second. To be honest, I'm much more the second person and its harder to fight idealism with ideas than it is with experiences. So someone who has their mind made up can read theory and it just confirms what we already think. If it doesn't change the way we act, if it doesn't engage us in the work, then the theory is just ego, a waste.
As for 1919 I have no clue what you are referring to.
And for idealism and ideology, these are complicated concepts and I dont think we are on the same page as to their meaning. If you'd like to explain what you mean a little better, rather than just asking pointed questions in a way that does not make clear at all what your beliefs are, that would be helpful. You dont talk like any leftists I've ever met, so its really hard to determine where you are coming from. Can you just name something that you believe other than "liberals bad"? The way you talk about liberals is not qualitatively different from how reactionaries describe liberals.
Fine. I'll quit with the "coming in hot."
Okay?
That's because my political label is working-class normie - not "socialist" or "anarchist" or whatever.
Ideologies are not complicated things at all. At their core they all come down to a very simple thing - who it is that must be protected by power and who it is that must be exploited by it. Everything else is simply fluff that (at best) play a supportive role. Take the liberal fetishisation of "law & order," for instance - despite this fetishisation it is absolutely not central to liberal ideology at all. It is merely a structural characteristic of liberal ideology -a necessary aspect to facilitate the necessary violence that keeps the working class where liberal elites (the people leftists insist on calling the "bourgeoisie" because... reasons) wants them to be.
This is what the quote up there refers to.
The Spartacist uprising - you know, that whole thing.
Yes - because that is how leftists should have been talking about liberalism right from the start.
Thanks for describing some of your ideas. The "liberals" I was referring to are more like other working class normies, not thought leaders. My actual political strategy is to split the liberals, like the petty capitalists will have to be split by developing the conditions of struggle, along a material class basis, not with ideas.
Im not defending liberalism, I just think a lot of liberals are working class normies who aren't as theoretically developed as you are. I'd say you are anti theory from your comments but that doesn't seem to be the case either. You are contradictory, just like the rest of us, and in contradiction there is the possibility of change.
I follow your definition of ideology, it's a good working definition. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is worth reading if you haven't. But dont go off YouTube, nobody understands his actual theory. I can send you the essays im referring to, if interested. Only a working class normie, who learned critical thought by criticizing our own experiences could understand it. I'd like to say we have some things in common, I'm no academic and I'm too much of a contrarian to get along with party leaders. Im as self educated a person as youll ever encounter.
But i think there is advantages to being openly socialist, and I think that condemning theory and theorists is a far cry from being correct, especially when someone commits themself to being oppositional and judgemental at the earliest sign of possible disagreement. Intellectual elitism isnt a quality of the working class, its a quality of the bourgeois liberal. Mirroring elitism with "negative" elitism is playing by the same rules with different referees. But also people have to come to it on their own. You can't convince a liberal to be leftist, something has to change for them, so I think we might agree that there is little use in bending over backwards over them. But I think we can represent a positive alternative, well meaning liberals can be won to socialist principles. But they can also end up disaffected fascists or apolitical bullies. It really takes a party, not an individual; but the party is made of individuals, so there is a dynamic to navigate imo.
I've read The History of the German Revolution by Pierre Brouè, so I wasn't thinking about the spartatacist uprising like an event, more like a 10 year period, so thanks for clarifying. There are a lot of really great lessons from that time, although unfortunately, many cautionary tales. But one thing that I took from it is the necessity (inevitability?) to split the major moderate factions, like the split between the SPD and the USPD, and later, the KPD and the KAPD, into actual fighting forces for the working class. Unfortunately, it shows how crucial education and deep roots in the working class are to success. Maybe if the Spartacists had done more to prepare for the 1917 split then the working class wouldn't have been so disorganized in the following years. The Vorwards uprising was a result of police agitators taking control of a disorganized movement, Rosa clearly saw the problems with a putsch, and sure enough, the failed action led to the death of her and Liebknecht at the hands of fascist police. If they had survived, the left may have actually seized state power, and Luxemburg's sharp criticisms of Bolshevism may have lead to a dramatically different outcome in Russia as well -- not to mention suppress the rising fascist movement in Germany.
Two questions, you dont think reactionaries are wrong about liberals? What they hate about it are its progressive qualities, by and large they support private property. You reject private property, do you reject communism? And if so, then what?