this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
783 points (83.6% liked)

Lefty Memes

4377 readers
148 users here now

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.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Primarily the Russian government's fault, but of course NATO is partly at fault. Belonging to NATO isn't a human right, and the expansion of NATO further east than Germany shouldn't have taken place. If European countries wanted a military alliance, they should have made their own. I don't believe I need to preface every comment saying "I wholeheartedly condemn the actions of the fascist Russian government in Ukraine", which I do, as much as I don't preface my comment saying "I wholeheartedly condemn the actions of NATO in Iraq", which I also do.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why should the expansion of NATO past Germany not have happened? No one forces countries to join NATO, they all willfully joined, often having to jump through several hoops to do so.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As I said, I know they willfully joined, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to join a military alliance with NATO, the same way I would want China not to create a military alliance and then incorporate Mexico and Canada, even if Mexico and Canada wanted to. Joining a military alliance isn't a human right.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Actually that is a human right. Countries are free to ally with whatever country they want pending any previous agreements. Eastern European countries made zero promises and had zero obligation to not join NATO. Russia doesn't have fucking "dibs" on them, just like the US doesn't have "dibs" on Canada or Mexico. I wouldn't have a problem with Mexico or Canada willfully joining an alliance with China because that is, in fact, their right to do so. And it would speak volumes to how far relations would have had to deteriorate between them and the US to get there, but that is their right to do so. Maybe if Russia wasn't such a shitty, untrustworthy neighbor, more countries would be willing to ally with them instead of NATO, but hey, that's Russia's problem.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Actually that is a human right

Source?

Countries are free to ally with whatever country they want pending any previous agreements

Free to do so, for sure, I'm not claiming illegality, I'm claiming it's wrong. It leads historically to escalation, not to mitigation of tensions. Remember the missile crisis

Eastern European countries made zero promises and had zero obligation to not join NATO

Again, you're not understanding me for some reason. I'm not putting the blame on those countries, I'm putting the blame on NATO itself. It's not that these countries shouldn't want to join a pre-existing military alliance, it's that a supposedly defensive military alliance shouldn't incorporate member countries ever closer to the declared enemy of the US of A.

I wouldn't have a problem with Mexico or Canada willfully joining an alliance with China

I would have immense problems with China fostering military relations with the neighbouring countries of their geopolitical adversary, and if you don't, I think you should rethink that.

Maybe if Russia wasn't such a shitty, untrustworthy neighbor, more countries would be willing to ally with them

I don't want any countries to ally militarily with Russia. I fully understand that Russia has a fascist aggressive government and I'm glad I don't currently live next to it as a Spanish citizen. My whole point is that NATO isn't a "purely defensive military alliance of independent countries", it's an organization subservient to the interests of the USA which has shown no remorse to act on foreign countries which didn't threat military action against member states of NATO, as was the case in Libya and Yugoslavia, and unofficially in Iraq.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Find me the source for ANY human right.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They literally said "Actually it is a human right", referring to the right of a nation to join a particular military alliance. They are the ones defending that, not me.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a 'human' right) to join alliances:

Actually that is a human right

Source?

So the question asking for a source on 'human rights' is kinda nonsensical, that's why they responded the way they did. You can't provide a source for 'human rights'. That's a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.

On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can't remember. Hope you are all right if you are.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine?

No, but thanks for the good wishes anyway

So the question asking for a source on 'human rights' is kinda nonsensical, that's why they responded the way they did.

The question would be nonsensical when brought up randomly, not when brought up in the context of asking someone who claimed "joining a particular military alliance is a human right" . I wouldn't be asking that question if they didn't say "actually it is a human right to join a military alliance". When categorically affirming what is and what isn't a human right, in my opinion, it's understood that this would be the consensus of some international organization, or some resolution signed by almost every country on earth. Of course there's dissent, and discussion is good, but saying that "joining a military alliance is a human right" is extremely fringe and, frankly, the first time I've seen it, so I'd like to see where they got that from.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yea I agree. It's a strange way to phrase it