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:
But what if their vision of society isn't less fucked up than the current one?
Then you gotta use your own judgement as to whether they're worth working with to overthrow the current evil or not.
As someone who is fiercely argumentative myself (and stubborn, foul-mouthed, and irritable to boot), I totally get getting into scraps with fellow leftists. I am by no means telling you to asspat anyone! People only change when regularly and vigorously challenged, and often not even then - but certainly an unchallenged view is an unexamined one for most.
But ultimately, please try to remember that we are all capable of being comrades here - or at least most of us. We have broad agreement in what needs to go - we can support each other, both ideologically and practically, in the many ways to go about it, even if they may not be the way we ourselves would prefer.
You don't have to fluff everyone no matter how far-fetched their idea, in a "We couldn't win this fight without you trying to project your consciousness into the Astral Realm to awaken the Primordial Leftist Gestalt! 😭🙏" way, but when someone says to you "I'm an anarchist, I organize to alleviate suffering at the grassroots level", the correct response is "Right on, comrade", even if you think state institutions are the optimal solution. Even in simply engaging in the fight, we raise its visibility; in raising visibility, we weaken the powers that be and widen the embrace for our comrades to join us.
None of us will win this fight alone. The leviathan will drag its carcass onwards as long as we refuse solidarity with each other. Maybe not everyone is an ally - but don't operate from the presupposition that disagreement is automatic cause for division.
There are many futures yet possible which are better than our present (though that may be damnation by faint praise), and the chance of any one of us having our ideology implemented 100% in any of them is very fucking slim. If you operate with the mindset of "Only my way is valid," not only do you offload the burden of achieving success onto people who are willing to engage in solidarity with their comrades, but when the future comes, no matter how hard you fought for it... you will be disappointed.
The world doesn't end with ourselves. We exist, and will continue to exist, with many other ways of thinking and doing things. The important thing is to prioritize disagreements, both in action and in sentiment. As long as a comrade is working towards the goal of a better world in SOME way that is not utterly futile, like begging for scraps at a fascist table, they are infinitely more your comrade than anyone who is... well, not working towards that cause.
Agreed. By the time our different ideologies become relevant, we've already made incredible progress. Let's concentrate on getting to that point first.
The other ⅓ of the “leftists” in threadiverse*:
jesus christ I thought that surely had to be satire but of course it's curtis fucking yarvin
I was with this till I saw it coming from someone who I constantly see screaming down at anyone that refused to support Harris and/or voted third party. How about practicing what ya preach there buddy?
While I'm certainly imperfect in this regard, regarding a low-cost low-risk act of harm reduction against fascism with potentially very serious effects as mandatory if it's not a major burden on your life is not an attack on your ideology, no more than regarding calling the ambulance for a dying man as mandatory is an attack on you, regardless of whether you think the man should be dying in the first place or not.
That's your belief and that's fine, but attacking people who believe the actual harm reduction is not supporting either major party since they're seen as the same level of harmful and votes for third party candidates along with progressive third party options at local elections (something I just did yesterday since my town just had our local elections and I only voted for those that never showcased support for either party even on their personal social media accounts) is just being the guy on the right.
That’s your belief and that’s fine, but attacking people who believe the actual harm reduction is not supporting either major party since they’re seen as the same level of harmful and votes for third party candidates along with progressive third party options at local elections (something I just did yesterday since my town just had our local elections and I only voted for those that never showcased support for either party even on their personal social media accounts) is just being the guy on the right.
That presumes that the requirement to not be the guy on the right is to endorse all actions, even ones which directly undermine one's own cause or directly assist fascism, as equally valid. That's not what the meme is saying. This isn't about asspatting people for enabling Nazis. I said that already.
People's views of what enables fascists are different. If you view the DNC as another fascist party, then voting for them is a fascist choice. A lesser fascist is still a fascist after all, whether you view them as lesser or equal is up to you.
People’s views of what enables fascists are different. If you view the DNC as another fascist party, then voting for them is a fascist choice. A lesser fascist is still a fascist after all, whether you view them as lesser or equal is up to you.
So you don't actually understand what 'harm reduction' means despite using the term. Got it.
Harm reduction to me is no harm being caused (unless it's to a member of the bourgeoisie class cause it's always open season on them) aka reducing harm to 0. Some view it as stopping 1% of harm which works for them. Both want the same end goal, but disagree on how to go about it and get passionately argumentative and sometimes hostile about it.
Harm reduction to me is no harm being caused
So you don’t actually understand what ‘harm reduction’ means despite using the term. Got it.
In any case, this is an argument over the validity of a method, which is not what the meme is about. The meme isn't saying "Don't argue with other leftists when your positions clash!", it's saying "Remember that there is broad room for cooperation and allyship, and that a different kind of leftist is not automatically your enemy just because they have different end-goals."
But that's what I'm saying. Working together towards the same goal of defeating capitalists is what matters. Yelling at each other over how to achieve it cause one believes it undermines the other is bad. Like the political party I do volunteer work with works with a variety of leftists to the point of of us refers to the party as "marxist-non-denominational". They've acknowledged having problems with some in the past like anarchists, but never shut them out if they want to help. The end goal is all that matters.
But that’s what I’m saying. Working together towards the same goal of defeating capitalists is what matters.
Sure.
Yelling at each other over how to achieve it cause one believes it undermines the other is bad.
Fuck no.
If you believed my work was undermining the end goal of overthrowing capitalism, why the ever-loving fuck would you stay quiet about that?
If someone believed that helping Nazis genocide the Jews was going to help the Allies win WW2, would that not be a point one should object to for reasons both moral and strategic, regardless of the fact that the end goal of defeating the Nazis is the same?
Thing is my belief isn't the only one that matters. If I think it's bad, but others on our side see it as good, then who am I to tell you to stop doing it? Sure I can suggest my preferred way of doing things, but that's just it. My way of wanting to get things done is my way and possibly the way of others that agree with me. Just like your way is how you'd prefer to get things done and people that agree with you will join and help. We both can amase a community built "army" (or whatever term you'd use) to achieve the end goal. Mine can support third party candidates at every level from local to national along with working to convince people in a deep red midwest state to do the same. Yours can support the Dem candidates at every level and work to primary out corporate Dems while holding your nose for the "lesser evil". Neither hurts the other, even if you want to believe getting people to vote for a non-Dem candidate hurts your goal even with plenty of other work being done at the community level.
Thing is my belief isn’t the only one that matters. If I think it’s bad, but others on our side see it as good, then who am I to tell you to stop doing it?
If someone believed that helping Nazis genocide the Jews was going to help the Allies win WW2, would that not be a point one should object to for reasons both moral and strategic, regardless of the fact that the end goal of defeating the Nazis is the same?
We both can amase a community built “army” (or whatever term you’d use) to achieve the end goal. Mine can support third party candidates at every level from local to national along with working to convince people in a deep red midwest state to do the same. Yours can support the Dem candidates at every level and work to primary out corporate Dems while holding your nose for the “lesser evil”. Neither hurts the other, even if you want to believe getting people to vote for a non-Dem candidate hurts your goal even with plenty of other work being done at the community level.
Man, I'm not even talking about primaries, I'm talking about one vote every four fucking years for the sake of minimizing the harm of a presidential position which has become far too fucking powerful. I'm not here to fight with anyone talking third party anywhere from local dog catcher to the fucking Senate. Just on the presidency, which, as we have seen presently, kind of does affect the lives of literal millions by the one fucking person who gets into office.
If you think taking 20 minutes out of your fucking day once every four years to minimize the chances of mass-murder of American minorities, marginalized groups abroad, and, as with this latest insanity, thousands of Iranians, is too arduous, or too much of an intrusion on your 'purity'...
I'm not going to pretend that's a course of (in)action worthy of anything but utter disgust, same as someone who says that the way to win WW2 is to help the Nazis genocide the untermensch. I'm sure as shit not going to asspat you for it. We may be able to work together as-needed in other areas, but I'm never going to pretend that that's anything but abhorrent.
I don't know why you keep acting like I'm against voting when that's all I've been supporting this whole thread. I do take the time out of my day to vote, even helping my elderly father who struggles walking get to the polls. I constantly advocate for more people to vote and convince my friends and coworkers to do the same. It's just that the bubble I fill in (we only have paper tickets here no electric machines I hear other places got) doesn't have a D or R next to it. The people I talk to are tired of the inaction Dems have shown for decades with many only voting for Conservatives cause they get tricked. I've gotten many who voted Trump in 2016 and 2020 to vote for actual progressives in 2024. We always talk about needing to build an actual progressive party and, as anyone will tell you, that starts by actually supporting them at every chance and takes a lot of time to achieve. Over 40k people supported a movement away from the major parties and no Harris would not have won the state had they all voted for her instead (she'd still be over 500k votes short and that's with 70% of registered voters voting which is pretty close to the 75% figure I see many wish would vote). She'd need basically half of the remaining people to vote for her and I just don't see a world in that happening after spending time with non-voters.
I don’t know why you keep acting like I’m against voting when that’s all I’ve been supporting this whole thread.
Against voting for harm reduction. IE, anything that might actually make a difference in the lives of millions.
We always talk about needing to build an actual progressive party and, as anyone will tell you, that starts by actually supporting them at every chance and takes a lot of time to achieve.
Yeah, and voting for a third party presidential candidate when the two major parties have been consistently polling at near 50% for the month before the election? Maybe not so fucking helpful.
I mean, very helpful to those who want to see more genocide and oppression of minorities, I guess. But that's usually not a goal of leftists.
But hey, who cares about the thousands of dead Iranians? Not your problem, right? You have your moral purity to uphold.
I’m not going to pretend that’s a course of (in)action worthy of anything but utter disgust, same as someone who says that the way to win WW2 is to help the Nazis genocide the untermensch. I’m sure as shit not going to asspat you for it. We may be able to work together as-needed in other areas, but I’m never going to pretend that that’s anything but abhorrent.
We'd still be seeing genocide. Harris was very open about viewing Iran as a massive enemy and refusing to put any stops to giving Israel weapons. She publicly stated she wanted our military to get stronger when talking about Iran and had no problems with Biden going around Congress to support Israel.
But that's all fine cause at least then it's just be overseas and nothing happening at home (ignore that Biden gave massive funding to ICE also and encouraged police to deal with college protestors)
We’d still be seeing genocide.
In Israel, yes. That was never a fucking choice we had, considering that some 75% of this fucking country still thinks Israel is our friends-to-the-end ally.
That's what 'harm reduction' means. It doesn't mean "I'm doing this because it will lead to socialism and a good outcome." It means "Our policies currently don't get anywhere near enough support for our candidate to win, and there are only two realistic outcomes; we should cast our vote, one act which costs ~20-30 minutes of our time, with the realistic option that gives us the LESS fucked result which results in LESS harm and more room for us to fucking WORK AND ORGANIZE so that we can get a fucking time when two fuckwits aren't our only options - whether by the ballot or the bullet."
But that’s all fine cause at least then it’s just be overseas and nothing happening at home (ignore that Biden gave massive funding to ICE also and encouraged police to deal with college protestors)
"Harris would have totally invaded Iran and tanked her own approval numbers!"
I see you're a very stable genius, just like the current president.
Look ya'll seem to love the % Hitler things so I'll put it like this. The choices you see are 100% Hitler and 99.99999% Hitler, but ignore the several 0% Hitlers also standing there wanting votes and have plans on how not to be Hitler then get upset when people support 0% Hitler over 99.99999999% Hitler. Like I said, I view harm reduction as being 0 harm which means supporting 0% Hitler.
Considering the third party candidates available in the USA, there were no "0% Hitler" candidates, unless you only view some genocides as worth opposing.
I'm not upset that people support "0% Hitler"; I'm upset that people act like solipsistic morons when voting. If more people actually supported "0% Hitler" and they had a chance to win, this wouldn't be a problem.
So how do you get more people to support 0% Hitler if you constantly publicly yell at the people who do?
So how do you get more people to support 0% Hitler if you constantly publicly yell at the people who do?
"Don't waste your vote on a candidate who is still polling under 1% in a race where there is a grotesquely worse candidate and a less-bad candidate both at near 50%" isn't telling you "Don't support 0% Hitler", it's telling you "Work on building support for 0% Hitler before you try to enter an election that requires a fucking plurality of the nation's population to agree with your choice."
And and yes there was a 0% Hitler choice in the race
I'm sorry that you don't think Ukrainians and Uyghurs are human beings, but unsurprising given your positions thus far.
Considering Biden armed and supported Israel WAY more than Ukraine I wouldn't say he or Harris view them as people either.
The only true way for people to see mass support for a good candidate is voting for them in the general. Bad choices don't deserve a single vote.
Considering Biden armed and supported Israel WAY more than Ukraine I wouldn’t say he or Harris view them as people either.
You really don't remember, do you.
Bad choices don’t deserve a single vote.
Yes, we get it, you believe Ukrainians and Uyghurs deserve it and that apologia for genocide is a good choice rather than a bad one.
You wanna show me where he did this for Ukraine?
I find it hilarious that you cite an article that literally discusses aid numbers by the Biden administration for both Israel and Ukraine.
But I guess if you could read, you wouldn't be a bootlicker.
I'm still wondering how anything you've been saying is any better than some rando saying Dems deserve a bullet.
So you agree with the "you're with me or you're against me" and "anyone who disagrees with me even a little bit is the enemy and deserves a bullet!" attitudes in this comic?
You're so close, man!
I'm fine with people having their own way of achieving a better world. My problem comes when someone starts fighting with somebody because they didn't do it the "right" way. If you support the DNC then cool. If you view them as no different than the Conservatives, awesome. If you think people who view one of these two is a problem that needs to change and you're gonna do that by attacking them, then fuck you.
Well that is kind of my point.
This comic basically is saying that you're a bad person if you don't agree with them, the "you're with me or against me" extremist attitude that is the exact same on the other side of the isle.
This comic sucks
I have solidarity with social democrats, democratic socialists, market socialists, democratic confederalists and anarchists.
I do not have solidarity with Marxist-Leninists. They are everything wrong with the left. There is no common ground to be had with them.
I agree. MLs are just fascists with a coat of red paint.
So in other words:
How to talk with other leftist:
Don't you dare disagree with anything we say or you're the enemy and O'Neill fucking murder you!
Okay then, that all sounds very reasonable!
Nah. Everyone's spiraling into our own little bubbles, including us on Lemmy (albeit more slowly without algos to gas it). And no one is interested in stopping it.
But one observation I've had is that most conservatives (with some exceptions, like libertarian-leaners or small business types) seem to consolidate around authority figures. Kinda like fundamentalist churches/megachurches. Leftists, on the other hand, generally consolidate around ideologies, which ultimately yields far less unity.
Nah. Everyone’s spiraling into our own little bubbles, including us on Lemmy (albeit more slowly without algos to gas it). And no one is interested in stopping it.
I mean, this is "Advice" meme, not a "This is how things are currently going" meme.
But one observation I’ve had is that most conservatives (with some exceptions, like libertarian-leaners or small business types) seem to consolidate around authority figures. Kinda like fundamentalist churches/megachurches. Leftists, on the other hand, generally consolidate around ideologies, which ultimately yields far less unity.
The issue is not so much the ideology as the tribalism. Tribalism around a central authority figure tends to be stable in composition, while tribalism around an ideology (including non-leftist ideologies like religions) tends to be unstable in composition, because one is based on solidarity with another member of the tribe (who is thus, by definition, part of the tribe), while the latter requires consideration of what positions makes one part of the tribe, which invariably ends up with different answers from different people.
In both cases, the tribalism (or rather, the exclusions caused by the tribalism) is the core problem, not the exact form it takes.