dank memes
Rules:
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
No unedited webcomics.
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
Follow the code of conduct.
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
Recent reposts might be removed.
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
hot off the presses 
Was getting sick of the endless political horseshoe/fishhook/stethoscope left punching memes, so I made this for !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com, crossposting here since most of the emojis are lifted from here
Feel free to roast me or suggest shit to add
I do not actually see a difference in level of authority exerted by the capitalist state or the socialist state.
They are not different, the difference is merely who the state serves and who the state uses its authority against to oppress. The socialist state is essentially just the bourgeois state with power seized and flipped until capital can be defeated.
I suppose in that sense from the proletarian's perspective it is less authoritarian. But from the bourgeoise perspective it is considerably more authoritarian against them.
I suppose in that sense from the proletarian's perspective it is less authoritarian. But from the bourgeoise perspective it is considerably more authoritarian against them.
perfectly put
after sleeping on this, makes me think that I should have put flipped the anarchist and communist positions.
if the value of positive Y correlates with degree of authority used against workers then the negative Y axis should really correspond to degree of authority used against against bourgeois elements.
makes more sense as it is right now though. i think the X axis corresponds better to "authority used vs bourgeois/worker"
Yeah something like that. But in that representation then you'd be putting anarchism somewhere at the center of the authority axis.
Two axis in a class conscious compass could be authority on the Y axis from the prole vs bourgeois perspective and economy on the X axis again from the "for the proles" and "for the bourgeois" perspective.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics would be somewhere in the middle on this axis while full higher-tier communism would be the furthest left.
Bottom right and top left would still be meme ideology.
I actually really like the concept of "for the proles" and "for the bourgeois" being the basis of the axis, it neatly illustrates how socdems are more for the bourgeois than for the proles, both in authority and economy.
Yep, and the degree to which the authority is used depends on the conditions the state finds itself in, not on personal choice. In capitalist decay, fascism rises, in socialism under siege or invasion, you see more violence against reactionary elements. It isn't a personal choice, but a response to material conditions in the direction of the class structure of society.
It turns out that the whole "A left-right spectrum is too reductive, we need a layered matrix of state control and social progress" is actually wrong and all politics does lay more or less on a right-left line
I see the left/right line as correctly interpreting the primary contradiction, class struggle. The furthest right representing the absolute victory of the bourgeoisie and the furthest left representing the absolute victory of the proletariat.
Until that contradiction changes it will remain the basic foundation of politics in our time.
So yeah, it's just a left right line. Dialectical.
I think polcomp as a format should just be abandoned because it's not helpful and, though you and I don't agree on some of the specifics, it's over 50% meme ideologies insofar as you can map it onto ideology at all (something "authleft" is especially resistant to).
I really think your Y axis here is the only highly-generalizable and systemic distinction that has any meaning, though of course I very strongly disagree with the characterization of Marxism as being ideologically less democratic than anarchism unless your claim is that republicanism itself is less democratic than direct democracy, which I think is a frivolous objection. If I had to choose, while I must accept of course that bureaucracy is anti-democratic and a consistent problem in various states that claim Marx, ideologically this has been recognized as a structural problem from the beginning by the Bolsheviks and others, meanwhile some types of anarchism actually do oppose democracy in the broadest sense on account of the decentralized personal rights type frameworks they have (while other types are no less democratic than Marxism, of course), which necessarily exists as a set of proposed limitations on the democratic will.
I basically agree with your placement of China, and your placement of Tito as more opposed to Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie than Lenin is ridiculous.
Edit: Thinking about it, I think one of those triangle charts where the points are "Democracy," "Capital," and "Bureaucracy" would do fine for mapping most meaningful political movements in the modern world, if one really insists on making these charts.
Edit 2: I just now noticed that "decentralized" control is part of the definition of democratic and that just isn't true. Such a thing being enforced above the popular will is necessarily counter to democracy. I also find it strange to make soviets as a positive example and then place Lenin where you did, though I also think soviets, while useful for revolutionary organizing, aren't necessarily the best system for having a maximally democratic government either.
I also am not really one for the idea of it being more democratic to have plural parties as opposed to resolving differences within one real party (along with the little interest group parties we see in China, the DPRK, etc.), but that argument always gives me a headache, maybe because "party" can be a slightly nebulous term in terms of what it actually means for enforcing a line.
I think polcomp as a format should just be abandoned because it’s not helpful
I gotta agree, it really struggles to capture any nuance, rest assured this is meant to be a joke
I very strongly disagree with the characterization of Marxism as being ideologically less democratic than anarchism unless your claim is that republicanism itself is less democratic than direct democracy, which I think is a frivolous objection.
Case in point: I kind of intended anything below 0 on the y axis to be broadly opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, while positive is in support of it. Then it was to be a measure of how much it is a proletarian dictatorship vs class society being abolished.
The issue I saw is that 'democracy' as an axis can mean so many different things, depending on the economic and political context. This is more an artifact of how rigid the template is. As you pointed out, it doesn't cleanly break one way or the other.
I basically agree with your placement of China, and your placement of Tito as more opposed to Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie than Lenin is ridiculous.
Tito should probably be on the same level all the same, I honestly wasn't thinking too hard and had him and Teto next to eachother at one point before re-arranging things.
Fair enough, I was basically just commenting because you invited feedback, though I'm sure you know that.
I think even that is being too nice to Tito, but I'll be more concerned if we get a Titoist contingent on the board.
Incidentally, I know she criticized the Bolsheviks quite severely in several respects, but did Luxemburg deny the need for a vanguard party altogether? I haven't read what she has to say on that.
but did Luxemburg deny the need for a vanguard party altogether
from my understanding she was opposed to that type of centralization, from the organizational questions of the Russian social democracy:
Granting, as Lenin wants, such absolute powers of a negative character to the top organ of the party, we strengthen, to a dangerous extent, the conservatism inherent in such an organ. If the tactics of the socialist party are not to be the creation of a Central Committee but of the whole party, or, still better, of the whole labor movement, then it is clear that the party sections and federations need the liberty of action which alone will permit them to develop their revolutionary initiative and to utilize all the resources of the situation. The ultra-centralism asked by Lenin is full of the sterile spirit of the overseer. It is not a positive and creative spirit. Lenin’s concern is not so much to make the activity of the party more fruitful as to control the party – to narrow the movement rather than to develop it, to bind rather than to unify it.
she also talked about it in "The Russian Revolution" after they took power, chapter 5 + 6 were the relevant sections in that
Fair enough, I was basically just commenting because you invited feedback, though I’m sure you know that.
no worries, it's welcome!
Best polcomp I've ever seen.
The standard political compass does some bullshit alchemy where the right half of the chart defines "authoritarian" as wanting to enforce racism, and the left half of the chart defines "authoritarian" as central planning.
Needs more text
I had a feeling it wasn't enough, this could be even more leftist
Good post!
Also China and Deng being centrist/in the authright quadrant seems like prime struggle sesh 
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
they do be trademaxxing, and truly what is more centrist than trading with all sides of every conflict? 
some days I just can't help causing trouble 
I also have 
to the right of 
because the x axis reflects willingness to radically change the system vs reform it
I have this concept laying around, but I haven't shared it, because I suspect it's either gonna be like pure rage bait or like mega struggle session. Also I haven't added anyone to the thing, can't be bothered with it lol
or more likely people will look at it, look at me, then say "That person is too far gone."
Maybe I haven't gone far enough 
Too far gone
Tbh I'm never going to be truly happy, until the day Palestinians and every other group of people are treated as equals.
But I'm aware that I'm not a superhero and I can't save them. The only thing I can do is learn to ignore my feelings and do the rational, realistic solutions.
Is it really that strange my mental state might be off when I have to learn it's okay for some people to die and nobody will save them, there's nothing we could have done to save them? lol
The only thing I can do is learn to ignore my feelings and do the rational, realistic solutions.
what ive been learning to do more is channeling feelings (instead of ignoring them) into organising. sounds kind of cliche but it helps not to feel completely useless
I think you have a good point. Thanks for reminding me 
The only political compass I’ve seen that isn’t fuck ass’d garbage.
If there's a teto for the marxists-leninists and one for the anarchists, there's gotta be a miku or someone else to the top right hah
that's a great point, how could I forget 
leftymemes doesn't like it, hexbear loves it. Clearly, you have become a tankie diva.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
not like this!
Ive been questioning my idealistic view of democracy. It is the prefered form of government by the bourgeois class, and is no less authocratic than other forms of government. Democracy is not the opposite of authocratic rule. The bourgeois state does not mind which mechanism has been used to justify its existence. The state claims authority and wields it. Should we really say that elections, parliament, equality and freedom etc. are undemocratic? Democrats the world over would disagree.
What we have is bourgeois democracy, the dictatorship of the owner class. There are better forms of democracy no doubt.
authocratic
Do you mean autocratic?
Anyway, beyond what we must always mention about how capitalists pervert democracy with their ownership of the media and ability to bribe elected representatives, it must also be remembered that the government is deliberately built to give them power and counter democracy. That's the one and only purpose of the Senate and the one and only purpose of the Electoral College and the one and only purpose of term limits and on and on. We can see in the writings of the Founders that they knew, even with the heavy truncation of voting rights at the time, that if they built a government that was "too" democratic, it would be bad for the rich!
Do you mean autocratic?
Yes thank you.
I cannot speak on the American system specifically. I think i disagree that the government tries to counter democracy. If that was the case, there would simply not be elections. The system as it exists in most countries is democracy as intended. As i said, Im making a conscious decision to not define democracy as something that does not currently exist in reality, and im naturally primarily looking at the state that i happen to live under, which is commonly described as democratic.
The average social democrat would agree If we said, the rich are working against democracy. If we just prevented bribes, biased media etc. we could vote for a party that will use the power of the state for the good of the people. I believe that to be impossible. A party either serves the national interest of performing well in international competition, or it has no chance at succeeding in democracy. Im afraid i cannot expand on this, as I do not feel ready to make a complete and coherent argument yet.
I think democracy and its institutions are the means to align the interests of voters with the national interests of the state, which itself are tied to the interests of domestic capital through taxation. But im not sure and i'll have to read more.
I think i disagree that the government tries to counter democracy.
This puts you in contradiction with the actual designers of the American government, who identified various measures they made as being explicitly for the purpose of checking democracy. This comes up in the Federalist Papers, for example, as well as correspondences by Hamilton, Adams, and others.
Also, while I'm talking about the Founders, I can also point out an extremely obvious anti-democratic measure that has mostly been overcome: Only a minority of people were even allowed to vote! All of these measures are counters to democracy, but what could be more anti-democratic than that?
If that was the case, there would simply not be elections.
This is a false dichotomy, and let's use limited suffrage as an example: By letting only some people vote, you get a limited form of democracy that gets you the support of many of the people who can vote without needing to suffer the class antagonisms, etc. of the people who you don't want voting. But even this in isolation would be too democratic, again see the explicit statements of the founders, and so the scales were explicitly tipped in the direction of wealthier land owners with the Senate, which does not represent the population proportionately (and many other measures).
The system as it exists in most countries is democracy as intended.
This is a fiction that does not hold up to looking at the explicitly stated intentions of many of the people making these systems.
As i said, Im making a conscious decision to not define democracy as something that does not currently exist in reality, and im naturally primarily looking at the state that i happen to live under, which is commonly described as democratic.
Democracy is not a specific system of government, it is the degree to which people hold power. I am not saying "real democracy has never been tried", obviously there are significant democratic elements in liberal-democratic states, but I am saying that we need systems that are more democratic. If you are "making a conscious decision" to refuse to view anything as possibly more democratic than what we already have seen, then you are basically just question-begging away the possibility of a better world at all, of the merit of the creation of anything new.
The average social democrat would agree If we said, the rich are working against democracy. If we just prevented bribes, biased media etc. we could vote for a party that will use the power of the state for the good of the people.
The average social democrat is half right. The problem with them is not that they support these measures, but that these measures are in a broad sense impossible to accomplish by normative participation in the system for as long as capitalism is the overriding global force. The state will kill you before it lets you get rid of the Senate and all of its other measures to counter democracy, though it has many intermediary measures before resorting to that.
A party either serves the national interest of performing well in international competition, or it has no chance at succeeding in democracy. Im afraid i cannot expand on this, as I do not feel ready to make a complete and coherent argument yet.
I think democracy and its institutions are the means to align the interests of voters with the national interests of the state, which itself are tied to the interests of domestic capital through taxation. But im not sure and i'll have to read more.
By what mechanism are they bound to be doing this? It's not like more taxes correspond to statesmen being paid more, and in fact they should receive only the same level of pay as any other worker rather than their current inflated pay on top of unlimited bribes. Under a more democratic system, someone's ability to hold office is contingent on them exercising the popular will, and if they don't then we can have recall elections to throw them out.
If you can't support something, my suggestion would be to not assert it.
