(TikTok screencap)
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
1093 points (97.2% liked)
Political Memes
9144 readers
3198 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Liberals are not on the same end of the political spectrum as leftists. That is why leftists don’t like dealing with them or joining forces with them. Because 9 times out of 10, on issues leftists care about, liberals will side with the right wing.
Bullshit.
Liberals are not anti-capitalist Capitalism is on the right. Liberals are on the right. It really is that simple.
The fundamental difference between the left and right is and has always been preservation of the current form of political economy (the right) vs progression to new form of political economy (the left). During the days of feudalism the right wanted to preserve feudalism and was represented by the landed aristocracy while the left was represented primarily by bourgeois revolutionaries pushing for a capitalist system. Today those bourgeois are on the right because they are trying to preserve the current system that sustains them while communists and anarchist are on the left because they recognize that this system does not work for them and are trying to build a new one. Liberals stand in the way of that and are therefore on the right
Okay Vladimir.
Look, it’s super-simple: Liberals want to tax the rich, Healthcare for all, Environmental protections, and publicly funded Education.
You can say that’s impossible because of worker oppression or whatever but that’s simply not the case. It’s a matter of enough people voting for officeholders who will do the work to implement those things.
Your socialist language is a pitfall and a barrier to practical, actual change.
Then why do they keep electing people who do the opposite of that?
Examples please. If you’re going straight to Obamacare, don’t bother: asked and answered.
Okay, now just fill in the people who did the opposite of that. Because that’s who “we elected”, right?
I legit don't understand what these sentences are supposed to mean. Can you rephrase it maybe?
Okay. So the conversation is:
And I asked for examples of who “we” (the dreaded liberals) elected that did the opposite of that. You found some good topics, and I asked to continue with the “who we elected who [did] the opposite of that”, so that you could share the names of the people.
The “people” from your comment.
Oh, that's easy: Biden, Obama, and members of the Democratic party who are in Congress.
Taxing the rich, healthcare for all, environmental protections, and publicly funded education are not socialism. They are things that socialism and socialists value sure but they are not socialism. Socialism is an organization of production. Who do I vote for if I want to own the means of production in common? How would a politician ever get elected on that platform and survive? Are you actually suggestion that we can vote business owners out of existence and they'd just roll over and let it happen? You say we just have to vote for the right people but the right people aren't allowed on the ballot.
If you got the vast majority of votes, yes. Technically.
But more to the point, as you’ll probably get asked in one of the first public appearances, what’s the plan to completely remake the economy? I mean, immediately switch to bartering? Capturing the 1% wealth and everyone gets a big check?
Also, can’t the workers own the means of production, like, now?
If I am honest with you I am not the guy who gets on the podium and explains an entire economy to the people. The exact details of how a socialist economy should function under the material conditions of the united states are still up for debate. I could do the leftist thing and send you an entire book that no one reads if you want but anyway. What I would like to see is the owning class (landlords and business owners) stripped of most of their assets. All the homes they don't need, all the machinary they use to enrich themselves. This is going to require violence unfortunately. You can't vote for this. I would then want to see those resources distributed amongst the people. I want those homes given to people who don't have a home. I would want the state to give jobs to workers who do not have them using the means of production that has been recently expropriated. I want those workers to produce goods for workers who need them at a price those workers can afford since the need for shareholder profit has been eliminated. I would like to see the people's wealth be used for the benefit of the people in the form of healthcare and education rather than war and subsidies for private businesses. Most things would stay relatively similar to how they were for quite some time. We wouldn't switch to bartering, thats an inefficient system in the modern era for large scale production. We wouldn't just give everyone one big check, we would permanently increase the value of their wage but removing the vast majority of surplus value extraction that business owners call profit. A lot of bullshit labor that exists specifically for the purpose of making the rich more rich would be eliminated and in exchange the people as a whole would have to work less. I can tell you what socialism intends to achieve and how it intends to achieve it broadly but I am no political-economist. I can't give you all the details. It gets way more complex as you approach international trade. China's model is worth looking into with its mixture of private and publicly owned business
Edir: also no, we can't own the means of production rn. Not as a whole. You can own some means of production in like, a co-op as a small group of workers but you will always be outcompeted by a formally structured capitalist business that can exploit its workers for profit in a way that a co-op can't
So . . . You can see why that’s not gonna get a lot of public support, right? Any solution that “requires” violence is going to be bad for some innocent people. And maybe based on that alone shouldn’t be advised?
Well, could you all maybe hole up in a meeting room for awhile and maybe thrash something out before refusing to support the party that already did that and wants the healthcare, environment, education stuff?
I’m all about a better way but “we don’t know” obviously isn’t it, so while that’s in discussions, maybe we could take the power back from the fascists in the interim?
I appreciate the goals. I’m not against the goals- what I’m against is denying the mechanism that exists to achieve those goals. So far as I’ve experienced on Lemmy, all the “lefties” for whatever shade of left people are, seem only to want to shit on Democrats and offer no practical political suggestions.
Yes I understand how that is unpopular. I don't expect a revolution to occur during a time when people think peaceful change is possible. Revolutions aren't something we make happen, they are a condition that is imposed upon us. The goal is to make a political organization that is ready to control a popular revolution when it eventually happens.
We do this often yes.
It isn't "we don't know" its "I am not personally informed enough on these functions so I won't pretend to explain them". There are people who can but I am not them and that is okay. I know saying idk isn't convincing but I won't do the subject a disservice by butchering it. Not every socialist is expected to understand every aspect of future socialist projects. We work as a group. I do intend to learn more on this subject though, it's just a long process that requires a lot of reading.
We shit on democrats because we do not hope to convince fascists that they are wrong and should change. We hope to show liberals the flaws within their party and line of thinking because they are actually capable of change. We don't offer what you consider practical politcal suggestions because we do not pretend what you consider practical will actually work in the long term.
Visions for how a socialist economy would look in the US absolutely exist, you only have to look for them. Unfrotunately they are longer than a lemmy comment and require a lot of time to write. I am playing minecraft with my partner rn and don't feel like finding them for you. If you have good-faith questions to ask or want resources to read go to the askchapo community or something
Any luck yet?
Fair enough. Best wishes on the reading. I know that’s the boring work most people don’t do.
Well, that’s funny because that’s what “practical” means, right? That something works “in practice”. If you don’t have anything that works in practice, why would anyone be convinced of its validity as a political structure?
Wow I did not know that was a thing. I’m gonna pass, but I do appreciate your taking the time to address some of the discrepancies. Enjoy the Minecraft.
I mean liberals think they are until an issue that actually matters arises. Having enough decency to not think minorities should be killed off doesn’t make you a leftist automatically. Thinking the world shouldn’t be run as a Christian fascist autocracy doesn’t by itself make you a leftist. And you can’t just have those two insanely low bars in common with leftists and then be confused when they won’t side with you every election without question.
What the hell are you talking about.
Is this one of those things where you’re mad at/about the Bolsheviks again or something? Are we gonna lose our chains again?
lol say whatever intentionally ignorant crap you want but the upvotes/downvotes agree with me. Until liberals understand that they’re not going to be able to functionally ally with leftists.
Downvotes from “AngryCommieKender” and “10OhmResistor”? Lol yeah you’ve got a huge plurality of the fourteen votes proving your point.
Leftists are pants-wetting screaming babies who can’t be arsed to do the simplest thing to help get us out of this insane chaos they helped get us into.
I disagree entirely with the Democratic strategy to reach out to “moderates” for votes, but I sure as shit understand it. Why bother moving left if leftists are arrogant self-absorbed navel-gazing buttmunchers that can’t get their shit together to run ONE fucking candidate for ONE office much less form a national political party that can gather 5000 signatures.
Please. If you want to pretend Communism as practiced by the Soviets is super cool, great - just stay out of real discussions about politics.
Leftists have run candidates. Many times. But liberals would rather vote for a right wing candidate than a leftist. Which is also why leftists no longer see a point in working with them. You’re just proving my point.
On a personal note, I also don’t like working with noodle armed wieners who are ignorant to the fact that they’re siding with fascists anyway. I have more self respect than that.
Who? And if “leftists” are running candidates no one wants to vote for, you’re blaming “liberals” and claiming it proves your point? Is it not possible those candidates sucked?
On a personal note I also don’t like working with supposed American voters whose self-absorbed sophistry is so dumb they ended up supporting literal fascism in progress at this very moment and still can’t understand that.
This is false. And no I won't humor your endless arguing about it.