this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026
40 points (95.5% liked)
Memes of Production
1709 readers
855 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
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.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I fully agree with the opinion behind this, it feels like a bad faith argument for the sake of mocking.
Especially with how it uses the word "create".
I'd say the good faith argument for ~~communism~~ Leninism would be them trying to take over the government, and then corrupt the government's purpose to achieve their own.
Still in my opinion, a bad way to go about it, prone to red cops, but this meme feels dishonest.
Edit: correcting words, comments below are right to distinguish those things.
That's Leninism. And it's always led to corruption and even fascism just the same. Communism is classless and stateless. Leninist just like to use the word communism like the smurfs used the word smurf. It means whatever they think they need it to mean. The state and state power corrupts. Every time.
In b4 cowb comes in with some long winded, convoluted rant.
It would work this time except the CIA!
Now I'm not a Leninist nor am I a fan of party vanguardism in general, but Leninism has only been implemented once, and in its defense Lenin was basically out of commission as soon as the civil war was done before he actually got to do things. It's Marxist-Leninism (aka Stalinism) that was implemented all over the place, to predictably disastrous results.
Leninism, Maoism whatever you want to call it. The ploy of "just let us be the state bro, we won't abuse it like everyone else in history bro" has and is being tried multiple places.
Had lenin lived longer, maybe things would have taken a couple decades longer to collapse. But all the people that led to it were already in the borscht with Lenin. His poor choices put the people that brought it about within reach of the ability to do it. If he'd lived longer it wouldn't have changed that. I wouldn't trust myself with that power, much less anyone else. Why would anyone honestly believe Lenin could be different.
By the way, as an anarchist seeing the vitriol against tankies, I wanted to ask you your opinion on this vibes-based opinion of mine:
I know of some of the horrible things, but the way my reasoning tells me it probably works, is that "authoritarian communism" is corruptible, and therefore shouldn't be treated with trust, but I worry there's an amount of red-scare in all that hate.
My enemy's enemy, isn't a friend. But they can still be useful. When both groups are outsiders with no power. They can share a lot of immediate goals. The problem is. It's not chance corruption. The moment vanguardist get a jot of state power. If you aren't them, you're the enemy. If you disagree with them as the state. You are an enemy of the state. It's just a function of vanguardism and why it always devolves similarly.
Not thw person you asked, but I found your question interesting and wanted to share ny thoughts.
From an anarchist perspective all authoritarians seem to be enemies. I think an in depth analysis might be needed to find out who to prioritize when it comes to fighting. For my local context (Germany) the capitalist, liberal, conservative and fascist threat to autonomy and liberation is way bigger than the communist one, so in general it makea sense to focus on that. But in antifascists organizing, labor unions, leftist spaces the main authoritarian force often is state-socialist/communist, so in that context an opposition to their strategies and modes of organizing might be more important than lets say opposing liberal politics.
Also this type of question might spark interesting discussions when posted as a thread in anarchist communities on Lemmy such as !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !anarchism@slrpnk.net.
Leninism, I'd argue, not communism is what that argument is against. I agree with you elsewise I'm just a massive pedant.
Comunism is the end point. A moneyless, stateless, classless society where people provide what they can and recieve what is needed.
The vanguard party, the state, is intended as an intermediate. A fucking terrible intermediate but an intermediate indeed.
Not a communist by the way but I do like to make sure the best argument can be given. Vanguard parties are a part of Leninism, intended to achieve communism over time
I’d argue that we shouldn’t be seeing communism as just the endpoint, isolated from how we get there, and historical precedents should absolutely be part of its modern definition rather than “it was not real communism”.
I mean, there’s already a word for classless and stateless type of society, that doesn’t bear an implication of preceding century of vanguard party rule.
I'd say we risk chasing words and definitions in a circle without much benefit with that method. If we don't differentiate between the two it makes redicalization easy. People can easily state "no, they're an idiot, here's all the factual historical evidence. See? Believe me, don't believe them, they don't know what they're talking about"
There's value in differentiating. If someone comes along stating "I believe in communism" and it's entirely different than what you state you're going to argue against a specter and be disapointed when the person isn't a leninist. Most communists aren't, pretending they are isn't going to help anything.
What value does conflation hold? You get to "own the libs" sure with a trump card of "but the USSR!" to any communist sure but that only makes you feel good with no value outside of it. If they use a new term then we completely divorce their belief from its historical context.
Nobodies stating we ignore precedent. The opposite in fact. Your conflation attempts to seperate the reality of communism and its beliefs from the historical reality of those trying to bring it about. We should be accurate in our representation. These people tried to bring communism to society. Here's what they've tried, here's how it failed, and here's why it was wrong. That's the conversation we should have. Communists should look back at that past and look for another way which isn't horrific to further their cause. The insistence that we conflate Leninism with the whole idea of communism typecasts the communist into that hole without value to anyone. Do we want that to be the only thing we talk about? Ignore all else? Shut down conversation?
No, I think not. Communism is an economic and societal system. Leninism is policy. The difference is important. They'll do it to what you believe too by the way. Find whatever horror they can to justify dismissing you completely. Sure, you should think on that horrible action, address it, but its obviously not defining.
Sorry for the screed sincerely I understand your point of view. I will always prefer preciseness in speech. Lastly, language is a tool, the fact that others misuse it is meaningless towards how it should be used. If we follow that logic, socialism is now defined as "whatever joe biden did" with how many people call him a socialist. People conflating communism the economic and social system with the policies of the USSR are doing the same.