171
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7288811
It's also because you DON'T hate AmeriKKKa ENOUGH.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
171 points (92.1% liked)
Lefty Memes
6956 readers
47 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. 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, discussion and agitprop/stuff that's better fit for a poster than a meme 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
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. Please post agitprop here)
0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.
We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.
When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.
0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms
When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart
- ofc => OFC
- af = AF
- ok => OK
- lol => LOL
- bc => BC
- bs => BS
- iirc => IIRC
- cia => CIA
- nato => Nato (you don't spell it when talking, right?)
- usa => USA
- prc => PRC
- etc.
Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them
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" (read: Dengists) (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 irrationally 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.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Sexual assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It isn't really a work of theory, but history, and as such it isn't really critical for learning how to think like a Marxist but instead is one person's application of Marxism to US history. What we can do with that history is better trace the ongoing class character of the US Empire, identify its primary internal contradiction (spoiler: it's settler colonialism), and that can better inform us how to organize, mostly within the empire.
The thing with Settlers is that it's somewhat easy to walk away with absolutely no hope for revolution in the US Empire. I'd say it's closer to valuable historical analysis than theory in that it's a historical materialist analysis of the US and not about a concept, it has a very well developed understanding of the Statesian labor aristocracy and how it formed through generations of genocide, slavery, and settler-colonialism. You're 100% correct that people use this book as an excuse to not do any org work in the US Empire and see it as pointless, ironically shifting all of the organizational labor onto the global south, but this is a mistake, and in no way takes away from the importance of the book.
In short, its utility is as a historical materialist analysis, not as an excuse nor as the end-all be-all. The sheer fact that it utterly destroys the western chauvanism that causes passive support for the west common in new leftists is extremely useful as well. In your case, it will mostly be a look at the disgusting history of the world's worst empire that it desperately tries to hide.
TL;DR don't walk away from it as a doomer, take the historical analysis from it and use your own judgement. We need to destroy the US Empire, decolonize it, and replace it with an indigenous-led socialist state.
And no problem, comrade!
I also think Settlers needs to be read in the context that it was written in, namely in the early 80s after the destruction of the civil rights movement and infiltration/breaking apart of most militant Black Liberation groups. If it feels hopeless that is mostly because things really did feel hopeless at that point in time.
Great point! And yes, it needs to be contextualized, as all texts really should be.
Yep! Revolutionary optimism is the absolute best attitude to have. The harsh reality is that, for now, the average worker in the US still gains more from imperialism than loses from capitalism, but the flipside to that is that the global south is breaking away from imperialism and thus weakening that very same system. As this happens, there will likely soon be an inflexion point where the proletariat in the US Empire aligns with the interests of the international proletariat, and this will mark the beginning of the end of this monster.
Dialectical materialism ensures that our hopium is based on solid ground, and not mere wishcasting! We're in late-stage imperialism, the global transition between capitalism and socialism is long, messy, and queer, but is already well under-way.
Fantastic question! In short, there isn't a correct answer to this, so the following is just my view on it. First, some clarifications:
Socialism in One Country isn't a stance against internationalism, but the belief that socialism can be achieved without revolution in the west. This dates back to Trotsky's insistence that the peasantry were counter-revolutionary due to having petty-bourgeois consciousness, and that the RSFSR would fall without support from a socialist west. The USSR practiced socialism in one country, but was directly interventionist, compared to the modern PRC.
The PRC's foreign policy during the sino-soviet split was awful. If you want to learn more about why, I gave my thoughts in a recent thread here. In short, they supported Cambodia over Vietnam, the US over the USSR, all because they thought that the USSR was an imperfect ally due to adopting a revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. They were right, and this revisionism contributed to their eventual collapse, but so did the split, especially with the terrible foreign policy on the PRC's part compared to the USSR's.
Alright, back to your questions!
I alluded to this already, but the PRC is already internationalist, just non-interventionist. I'll elaborate on that more later, but instead I'll answer what I predict will happen in the future:
As the US Empire continues to decline and the PRC continues to rise, there is a leftward turn within the youth of the PRC. Conditions are rapidly improving there, it's true, but staying so interconnected with the global market is a calculated risk with consequences for the working classes as well. They've relied heavily on exports, and this made them reliant on the world's biggest treatlerites, the US Empire.
In the latest Five Year Plan, however, the one for 2026-2030, a huge focus is being placed on raising domestic consumption, lowering working hours, and raising quality of life directly. The last few Five Year Plans have been focusing on green development, rapidly improving production, and equalizing the rural/urban divide that was sharp due to rapid development in the cities, but now that those are well under-way, China is beginning to try to rely on itself moving forward.
This opens them up to more interventionism, as the multi-polar world emerges, if they so choose, such as if the US Empire truly does try to spark a hot war in Taiwan/Japan/ROK (though the ROK is moving more towards the PRC these days and against Japan/US).
Essentially, they need to not depend on the US Empire for exports, and drive up domestic consumption, something they've already aconowledged. The PRC also has a defensive millitary, not an imperialist one like the US Empire, so they'd need to pivot their range to a more active role, something the US is trying to prevent now by couping a bunch of states in South America.
This is where I will answer how they are already internationalist. It's because right now they are undermining the basis of imperialism by focusing on win-win development with the global south, and bypassing unequal exchange. A huge part of how unequal exchange functions is tech monopoly allowing the west to charge monopoly prices for tech, but China doesn't do that. That's why BRI and cheap EVs, solar, etc. have been seeing a huge swing in the global south, and has allowed the global south to escape underdevelopment.
It's a boring, slow, gradual internationalism, but they are trying to build that multi-polar world where the US Empire isn't the only player. That's why the US Empire is increasingly desperate to stop China, when they seemed just fine only 15 years ago. Chinese foreign policy during the Sino-Soviet split was terrible, and this is also a course-correction to not directly make the same mistakes they did for the latter half of the 20th century.
As time goes on, though, the youth are more radical and aren't simply content with the current level of development, they dream of the social safety nets of the Maoist era and yearn more for direct action. The process of democracy in the PRC is slow and gradual, but does respond to the will of the people. As these demographics shift, and more youth enter the CPC, we will likely see a more radical shift.
Just as Mao, Deng, and Xi all adapted to the present material conditions of China, so too will Xi's successor have to, and considering 2049 is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the PRC, expect big shifts in the years leading up to that.
Sorry that this was so long!
No problem comrade, any time! 🫡