this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
99 points (95.4% liked)

Memes of Production

1548 readers
350 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 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I would argue only that currently liberalism is failing, fascism is rising and all leftist movements are too weak to beat fascism alone.

I think we can fight together in the same fight against fascism, and work together against the ever worsening climate disaster.

There will be time to fight eachother when we're not beset by right wing enemies destroying civilization and the earth on all sides.

I'm worried that not fighting together when our goals are reasonably aligned means we'll simply get defeated by fascism.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The fascist threat is from both black and red. Rather than work with our enemies to fight our enemies, anarchists should focus on doing what they do and build our power independently from fascism.

And its always interesting, you never see people pressuring communists to work with liberals to help liberalism fight fascism but anarchists must always work with communists to do so.

[–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And its always interesting, you never see people pressuring communists to work with liberals to help liberalism fight fascism but anarchists must always work with communists to do so.

Are you kidding? We see radicals of all kinds being pushed to vote for or support liberals, especially communists. This is very out of touch with reality.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I never see ML's pushing other ML's to support liberals.

[–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I used to be part of a Trotskyist organisation a while ago and that's pretty much exactly what we did. I believe it's called entryism. Not only was it policy to vote Labour but to enter the party and try to push it further left.

I am sorry but you are just wrong here, and dangerously out of touch.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Entryism is not supporting, it's subverting.

If you want anarchists to invade ML group, destabilise and flip them, I'm all for it, still not going to join in as a I think it's futile, but I'll support others doing it - but I highly suspect that's not what they're asking us to do.

[–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

While I understand what you are saying in practice it means voting for and backing up a liberal party even if it's a means to an end. People push anarchists to work with MLs and with liberals for the same reasons. Mainly that it's a form of harm reduction until an actual revolution can take place. The entryism into labour wasn't done instead of a revolution. It was meant to get policies that support the working class in place until such a time as a real revolution could be enacted which obviously takes time.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

That's not the case. Malcom Harris (famously an anarchist) argues exactly for communists to work with liberals (social democrats). That's exactly the framework he sets up: in so far as many of our goals are now aligned, we all work together, but without compromising our own goals and values.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Right now, most leftist groups are so small that even if they all worked together it wouldn't be militarily significant. So even if we threw out all our values and worked together with genocidal assholes, we would still lose. You're asking people to sell out their entire ethical framework for a couple thousand untrustworthy allies. That just doesn't make sense.

As for liberalism, by your own admission it is failing, so why on god's green earth should we tie ourselves to that sinking ship as it goes under?

Luckily, there is a way out: You forgot that ideologies are made of people, and that it is those people changing their minds that cause the power balance between ideologies to shift. Liberalism is sinking because it has lost all credibility, and fascism is growing because it helps rich liberals preserve their power as the liberal economy contracts and because it gives the western working class a clear narrative of preserving some privileges in spite of that contraction by more violently extracting wealth from the less privileged.

So what we need to do is to have a clear narrative of how leftism will improve people's lives, ideally one that reflects reality. If we cooperate with genocidal parties, that muddies the narrative. If we cooperate with the liberals who set the world on fire, that muddies the narrative. It is great for the narrative to support diversity of tactics and diversity of ideology, but then we need to weave that into the narrative by explaining the limits of tolerated diversity and the process through which better tactics and ideologies are cultivated.

If we want to have any chance of winning, we can't team up with genocide supporters. Nobody could trust our promise of solidarity if we do. We might sometimes benefit from giving them resources or coordinating strikes with them, but they are a different faction.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 19 points 1 month ago

Step 1: Revolution

Step 2: Prop up Interim State to Dismantle the State

Step 3: Interim State becomes permanent and corrupted

[–] vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, there is value in improving the material conditions of the working class.

But you know they are gonna put you against the wall eventually.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just distract them by saying “Tibet.” They’ll be too busy falling over themselves explaining how you’re wrong that you can make a hasty escape.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Fill in the blank:

Deng Xiaoping is ______

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 13 points 1 month ago

And we can improve those conditions through anarchism.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think when Fascism is about to have a cultural and military victory the globe over some concessions are in order, until the wave is beaten back and then it gets complicated again. But I am just really terrified at how close we are to global surveilance and nation states owned by corps. I actually see that as our most likely future rn.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Switching autocratic fascism to autocratic fascism but red isn't an answer. If you want to promote human flourishing that is.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 month ago

Thats not at all what I am saying. Both groups are such a tiny fraction of humanity up against the biggest military on the planet with orders of magnitude more nukes than anyone else. Plus, why are you assuming communists would come out on top and not anarchists? China isn't getting out of WW3 unscathed and anarchists dont even ascribe to the notion of nations, we have no center to strike.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Assuming the capitalist hegemony doesn't co-op or crush either, there's something to be said about state management of sewers and drinking water.

Private wells and septic systems can go a long ways but once population density reaches the size of an apartment complex or an industrial process needs treatment, you're going to want some form of governance over those systems.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You don't need a government or state for complex frameworks to exist and operate.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Sure, you don't need them for such things to exist and operate. But until a stateless system is able to supplant this infrastructure, I think it makes sense to have a governing body to recognize how many parts per million of chlorine is okay after dosing the well or the amount of fecal coliform that's acceptable to be released into the local waterway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Bottom unity forever

load more comments
view more: next ›