Hell yea, as much as I wish I could live on the Red Planet I'll have to settle for centrism.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
98 points (89.5% liked)
Memes
55538 readers
539 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
top 44 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Authoritarians calling themselves centrists, but with a socialist twist, I see.
Reminiscent of mid 2010s alt-right political compass memes, complete with the true political alignment of the subject (auth left marxist-leninists in this case, but auth right fascists in the originals) being depicted as edgy and cool.
I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity. I don't think a format like this is fascist in nature but I am open to being convinced.
I think the joke is meant to be the absurdity
Yes, and it was the same for alt-right political compass memes, too. Plausible deniability has always been the approach of crypto-fascists - you point out the implied fascist ideology, they say you're taking a joke too seriously then when you say something else they hit you with the 🤡🌍.
I don’t think a format like this is fascist in nature
Nor do I, that wasn't what I was getting at. It's not the format at all that is an issue, nor am I implying this meme is fascistic in nature. I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right.
"This meme doesn't actually say what it says, it's actually secretly a different meme I saw somewhere else years ago"
Completely brain scrambled.
I'm just saying this meme is doing for the auth-left what classic political compass memes did for the auth right.
I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile.
I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position?
I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society.
Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example.
I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions.
With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state.
violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions.
This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/
and violence cannot be controlled
Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist
There are 2 major points here:
-
How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far.
-
Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened.
I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests.
''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.''
- Karl Marx
I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution.
In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
I agree with everything that you wrote, except this:
a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve [communism]
I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs.
I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move.
I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity.
If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution.
Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work.
Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them.
Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free.
authoritarian
I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class.
This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here.
I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism.
I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position.
I don’t think that’s the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you’re asking me here.
The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others.
Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class.
Liberals see authority itself as the problem.
Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense
The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it.
The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality.
Authoritarian
🙄
I am once again puzzled by this thing that's not Marxist, not anarchist, not social democracy, but is also non- authoritarian and is also communist.
For those that don't want to sound uneducated like @bearboiblake@pawb.social
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Thank you for sharing!
Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian?
As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs:
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon
You didn't read the text, I can tell.
Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian,
Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority.
but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian? As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form.
the root issue I have with MLs
The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant
"Marxism-Leninism isn't authoritarian! It isn't authoritarian because I said so. You can't achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you're wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure"
Very convincing, thank you for sharing, it's always a real pleasure interacting with MLs.
I don't read and understand theory. I call anything I don't like authoritarian repeating imperialist propaganda blindly
Ok stay ignorant
Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged.
I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so.
I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is:
Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure”
Then I seriously doubt:
I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out
You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible.
You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way.
No U
I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high.
No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it.
You should not treat theory as your bible.
You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have
I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully.
Solidarity forever.
I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^
I mean, there is always someone on your right as there is on your left, so depending on how you measure political "distance" you can always consider yourself in the center ^^