Capitalists are like cucks for billionaires. Think of the billionaire as a shark and the capitalists as Remora fish. /s
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
656 points (94.4% liked)
Political Memes
12522 readers
1726 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Thinking of the world as two directions is literal one dimensional thinking. The real problem is a society willing to operate with just one neural weight.
that's the american way.
Neoliberals are right wing
This submission is exactly the divisive shit fascists love to see. Congratulations.
Fascists love people who bitch about boomers - they ignore all the young people coming up conservative and all the old progressives.
Fascists love people who bitch about various kinda of left-wing or pseudo-left-wing groups and ADORE threads where people argue over what those terms even mean. It all distracts from uniting against fascism.
Fascists love the "both sides' bullshit - especially because it contains enough grains of truth that it is very compelling (like a lof ot their propaganda, they sometimes raise some good points that get lost in the fascism) - because ti causes people not to vote. Mostly progressives.
Fascists love this thread.
I fucking don't.
bOtH sIdEs aRe tHe sAmE
Such a reply indicates you sarcastically believe I'm saying precisely that, which is the opposite of what I'm saying?
I’ve done my share of bitching about boomers but damn it you’re right.
I have as well, then I realized it was another damn insidious wedge issue thing. lol
But it is easy to bitch about them because there are an awful lot of asshats that are older. Just....... a lot of younger asshats, too. lol
The liberalism that is practiced in the US is neoliberalism, the same thing practiced throughout the developed world, and we don't see ideological movements in power specifically because business interests have historically intervened to overthrow those governments in order to install friendlier regimes that let them plunder natural resources.
But then neoliberalism ultimately favors property rights over human rights, and as Marx observes in Das Kapital the owner class will influence the courts to favor property and business over the public good. It'll also hack law to gain influence over the government to deregulate and protect the power of the wealthiest plutocrats and companies.
Democracies and leninist economies have existed. They just get put down before they have much of a chance to flourish. Even Wilson favored monarchists over communists.
In the US, we can't imagine anything other than capitalism because of over a century of propaganda inserted into our primary schooling. That campaign has only gotten more and more conservative and now MAGA ideology is taught in class. This was deliberate, as the US education system was always regarded as an instrument of control and worker indoctrination.
Liberalism, in all of its forms current and historic, has always valued property over human lives. Property is the guiding principle of liberalism.
Yes, that's what we need now more than ever as we approach the general election in the US: More in-fighting amongst anti-fascists.
idk if I'd call tankies antifascist. They just think it's the wrong color
load more comments
(5 replies)
Understanding academically defined political terms is not the same thing as arguing arbitrarily defined cultural differences.
Academically defined political terms != actually used political terms in the US and even some other western countries now.
Being a liberal in mainstream USian political discourse can mean a lot of things, usually includes being pro choice, against mass deportations by ICE, etc, pro LGBTQ rights, etc. Often includes being pro healthcare for all as well as free higher education for all, despite the latter ones not being liberal policies in the classical sense of liberalism. Looky here
Social liberalism has been used without the 'social' qualifier in the US since the 30s now if Wikipedia is to be believed. You start talking negatively about liberals, a lot of people will assume you mean you want to own black people, hunt gay people for sport, ban abortions and perhaps lower the age of consent, because being "liberal" has started to mean being pro individual liberties, equality and improving everyone's quality of life. Things you would, in the original definitions of the terms, associate with ideologies to the left of liberalism.
Liberalism, in the US, is then actually somewhere between liberalism and social democracy, closer to the latter, despite the name being closer to the former. The left wing here on the fediverse in particular engages in language prescriptivism over descriptivism this way.
Yes, I, too, wish these terms had stayed static because it sucks when the same word means different things to different people, but that's not the reality we live in.
I get that these terms get tossed around without people knowing what they mean, and I'm not against language evolving. But liberalism was never really intended to describe wherever you are on a progressive-conservative spectrum.
Pulling from Wikipedia, but it's a similar definition in most texts.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Classical liberals just tended to look progressive compared to people who weren't liberals, because, well, read the definition. The countervailing force to liberalism is authoritarianism. It's more of a government legitimacy and structure philosophy.
I really like this way of looking at it.
One thing though, the countervailing force to liberalism is illiberalism. Authoritarians can be liberal even if in theory they oppose individual rights. This is seen in liberal autocracy and ordoliberalism.
That's fair, illiberalism is the proper countervailing force here, it just has some Venn diagram overlap with authoritarianism where the latter curtails political freedoms. It is easy to conflate them!
How do you oppose individual rights while supporting the individual right to self determination?
Liberal autocracy is an oxymoron, unless you define liberalism along the progressive-conservative spectrum. Which is what the capitalists and autocrats and tankies would like you to do.
Dictatorships which doesn't enforce some specific social order, but which does aggressively stomp out criticism. See - people who moved to UAE and thought it was a free country until their government didn't like what they said anymore.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The definition of liberalism changed a lot, especially thanks to right-wing entryism.
Words lose their meaning over time. Once "alt-girl" meant a woman specifically into alternative rock, and not an umbrella-term also involving metalheads, goths, punks, etc. Once cuck meant someone with a cuckoldry fetish, now it's a pejorative used against people who (at least supposed to) bend over and do nothing in situations really bad for them. Once LARP meant Live Action Role Playing, now it used to demean "fake" fans.
Liberalism once stood for liberty, equality, and paternity. But paternity stood in the way of capital, so liberalism split into three main groups: socialism, moderate conservatism (neoliberalism, classical liberalism, you know the rest), and social democracy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
It's 2026 and any talk of political labels outside an academic setting is useless.
Hitler wasn't a Socialist; North Korea isn't a Democratic Republic; the Chinese Communist Party has numerous billionaires.
Pick actual candidates and vote for them without tying yourself in knots over what they call themselves.
Second, stop pretending there's some giant 'Left' majority in the US. Mamdani won NYC with 51% of the vote; Harris got 65%. She got more total votes and a higher percentage than the guy who called himself a Socialist.
I like Mamdani, and I voted for him, but if he gets re-elected it'll be because he's a savvy pol, not because of some Left wave.
It's a big conundrum:
- On one side, most people when told actual policies which are generally considered left-wing (say, Free Education) agree with them
- On the other side, most people don't have the attention span to read long lists of policies (hands up anybody who ever read the entire electoral program of even just one candidate in an election they voted in) so even the most well-intentioned politicians end up using short political terms with vague-ish definitions which are easily subverted, to describe their own set of policies or those of others.
So we end up with Liberal this, Socialist that and if you try and get down to tightly defined nitty-gritty details of their meaning, no two people fully agree on the definitions.
He won 51% of a three-way race, which means moderate Democrats and independent voters had another option that wasn't a Republican, and he still kicked both of their asses with a majority.
I support what you're trying to say but your argument is built around a very disingenuous framing of the election outcome.
A better argument is that Mamdani won DESPITE being a known socialist. He won despite the tag. Just like he won despite his religion and name.
Understanding why he won despite those things is how we can best use his election to inform our other candidate and voting choices.
He won despite running against a known sexual predator and a radio shock jock.
The argument I keep hearing is that there's a giant Left majority that stays home every election because they can't stand voting for corporate Dems.
When the time came for these folks to show up and vote for a Socialist they didn't vote?
load more comments
(9 replies)
I feel like this all ignored the complete bastardization of any sense of language or definition in American politics. None of these words mean anything and engaging in it is playing party to the fucked up games people have invented to delay any sort of growth or action.
"Neoliberal conservativeism" was a thing. They're all nazis now. 'Liberals' is a slur against anyone who isn't left enough. 'Liberalism' is the blood-shy self-blind median our parents and grandparents wanted for us so we didn't have to watch our friends die in imperialists wars in Asia. Libertarianism was supposed to be a rejection of any of this and got coopelted by some of the most evil freaks in the system. The Left represents the most meaningful and poplist messaging we can mannage and is still consumed by bickering from people who can't walj and chew gum or breathe at the same time.
Stop trying to argue the labels.
load more comments
(13 replies)
view more: next ›