Finally, Lanterns series meme
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
95 points (94.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
2790 readers
312 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
i dont get it
Vast majority of people calling themselves Marxists, especially online, are actually Stalinists, and they hate Trotsky.
You just don't question how the April Thesis became Socialism in One Country in the The Foundations of Leninism (written by Stalin, not Lenin), and ignore the Permanent Revolution. Then you get Stalin as the "true" Marx and Lenin successor.
To be fair, plenty of anarchists dislike trotsky as well. 😁
Vast majority of people calling themselves Marxists, especially online, are actually Stalinists, and they hate Trotsky.
I'm still low key baffled by this argument and the continued popularity of the term "Stalinist". Like what exactly is the issue with the name? Are self-professed MLs not really Marxist? Or are there self-professed MLs that are not "Stalinist" and you think they have the more legitimate claim to the name?
If the venn diagram between self-professed Marxist-Leninists and "Stalinists" is a circle, then the argument is ultimately pedantic. And if the aim is truly this kind of quibbling, who is the target audience? I don't think it would be revelatory for someone educated in the former socialist bloc to hear that the term was coined by Stalin. For someone educated in the U.S. it would surely reaffirm what they'd been taught in school at best, and at worst cynically exploit the vibes they'd gotten in lieu of an education to cast aspersions on...who? the U.S.S.R which doesn't exist anymore?
Idk, either there's some real substance to this kind of argument that has eluded me thus far...or it's utterly absurd in this, the year of our Lord two thousand twenty six.
EDIT: Also, why doesn't this happen with Maoists? There aren't nearly enough people constantly reminding them and everyone in the vicinity that Mao didn't coin Maoism. This feels completely one sided.
Yes, Marxists that are not Stalinists are more legitimate. (the image doesn't say ML, just Marxist)
That was not my question. Please re-read it or I might suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. My question is if the issue is specifically with the "Marxist" in "Marxist-Leninist" or with the term as a whole.
Oh, it's more with the Marxist, and even Leninist, on what actually means Stalinist - given how much Stalin deviated from both (and I even hinted that Trotsky was more ideologically aligned with the second name on that ideology than the guy that claimed the name), but hey, one can name their stuff whatever they want, didn't Hitler name his party socialist too? Stalin can proclaim himself the new master of Marxism and the heir of Lenin then (despite what the testament said lol), it's up to the people to believe their kings or not.
and even Leninist
Is this a thing? Are any groups of people calling themselves simply Leninists? Or did Lenin himself name some theory after himself?
given how much Stalin deviated from both
Thats just like your opinion man. Or do you want to bring charges against the heretics?
Trotsky was more ideologically aligned with the second name on that ideology
That's a take, sure.
Stalin can proclaim himself the new master of Marxism and the heir of Lenin
This is a bizarre conflation. Are you talking about intellectual/theoretic successors or are you talking about a hereditary title? Usually claims of intellectual succession aren't resolved through force of arms. And surely, it's far too late to decide the question of the succession of leadership of the U.S.S.R anyway?
It was totally resolved through force of arms, like, literally every name on Lenin's testament was slandered and murdered, and Stalin inherited not just the control of a state but of an ideology he twisted as best served his own interests and forced it through the Comintern, outlawing organizations that didn't fall in line. But let's not waste both our times, I already blocked all ML instances because I give zero fucks about what Stalinists have to say, unfortunately blocking the instance doesn't block its users. Keep replying if you wish, I value my time so I'm out.
And the Lord said onto them, "he who lives by the snark shall perish by the snark".
An interesting idea. Is someone more or less of the marxist if they are the marxist-leninist or are they less the Marxist than someone who says they are just Marxist?
Is a marxist-lenist-stalinist-maoist-thenextsomeone less of a Marxist than a marxist-lenist? How much of the principles and the heories are diluted or revised or pure? Is the Stalinist a revisionist, is it a revision if its a condition of the current needs and pragmatism? Does denouncing of crimes constitute revision? If someone calls themself a Stalinist and someone points to the secret speech as evidence of crimes, who is then the reactionary for the next comment?
Is the only "pure" Marxist then Marx at the exact moment of the death. Himself will have 'adjusted' the positions (revised?) as time goes towards.
I guess we're operating from different starting assumptions. If you think there can be a "pure" Marxism or Marx's theory is definitive, complete, or perfect, then I see how you could take issue with any modifications or additions to it.
If the demarcation of Marxism is to be so rigid, a theory more akin to a dogma, then I see how such disagreements might arise.
Unfortunately I don't think this kind of model, emblematic of organized religion, is how the vast majority of self-professed Marxist-Leninists conceive of it. So the line of thought which seems to run along parallel lines to religious theology is going to be ineffective.
The possibilities of Marx's purity or perfection of theory as put forth are hilariously ironic but I don't think they're serious, given how well known is for opposing idealism and organized religion in particular. I also think it might already have a cheeky name that echoes Christianity -- Orthodox Marxism.
I am sorry, this comment went in the different direction. Is there not a dogmatic critique of the cult of x? Stalin's successor was famously speech about the corrupting power of the individual. This was sharply rebuked by PRC as being revisionist. The interpretation of "orthodox Marxism" and revisions to ML. Cheeky. Would the USSR of the past not critique the PRC of today for its trade with the US or EU and lead to a soviet-sino split?
I lack the understanding of the mechanisms of PRC, USSR. I expect that they are at grass root very community driven. I also expect that dogmatic leadership can be a real problem, and my usual scared in enabling a ML which usually advocates for the vanguard, may turn into the board of public safety. The mechanism of recall or public shaming do little to remove the power of the threat of violence.
How will the corrupt be prevented from centralising the power and going against the interest of the common. In PRC we have seen purges of corruption, mayors hoarding bribed gold, billionaires exist, and Xi says they will achieve socialism beyond 2050. What trust can I put in the dogmatic to deliver a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Am I choosing between the shiniest of two turds? We do it because we must, but do I replace one master with another?
Oh, it makes sense to me now. Thanks for the explanation.