this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
763 points (91.6% liked)

Political Memes

8101 readers
1877 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I always say neoliberals will affirm your identity and support your right to be who you are!... As you die in the gutter of exposure and capital defense force brutality. Sorry, free market forces! 🤷

You can't eat pride ribbons. You can't live in pride ribbons. A neoliberal is better than a scapegoating fascist, but so is an empty soda can. Neoliberals are also equally as effective as an empty soda can in opposing fascism, the inevitable outcome of capitalism when left to run amok instead of straightjacketed to serve society as it must be.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Look, what matters here is that everyone is included equally under oppressive capitalist movements which aim to drain of us of our lifeblood and monetize our very cells.

[–] DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Neoliberal doesn't actually mean " The newest Brand of liberal" NeoLibralist regimes historically have also been exceedingly anti-queer. The term was coined in the 80's to describe a burgeoning different brand of liberal government that focused on cutting spending by privatizing swaths of the government. Think Thatcher, Regan and the modern Republican party... See also the early Nazis who historically privatized huge amounts of government to pad the wallets of their supporters but the label was applied retroactively.

If they are getting rid of government services and outsourcing them to a private company that's "Neoliberal politics". You are right that they are effective as an empty soda can at stopping facism but that's because they are usually better positioned to assume power, give up on democracy and go fascist but they aren't the group you're calling out here.

Really the bar for what "liberal" means is a system with a basic set of rights of the person that cannot be infringed upon by the government, universal rights of the person to own stuff (though not all stuff) and a dedication to some kind of democratic system. Basically it's become democracy's basic format and practically everyone in government who isn't a fascist is some variation of liberal or at least playing by Libralism's rules. It's not a statement on socially progressive or socially conservative rhetoric. You're probably better off specifying " Social Progressives" if you want to be accurate to whom you're talking about.

It's kind of the same rules as "NeoClassisism" which isn't constantly updated to mean the newest thing. That term got coined to specifically refer to an art style that is now 300 years old. Neo these days practically never refers to anything cutting edge.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

so... why didn't the left stop fascism? I hear a lot of talk about killing people, but it's been three months and nothing has happened.

Are we all just yappers?

You can bitch all you want, but the right won, and they won exactly what they wanted. So bitching about it on the left isn't going to make us anymore likely to win, is it?

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (13 children)

We have no leftwing party in the United States

I phone banked for Sanders on 2 campaigns.

I don't see Neoliberals or Fascists as winning, just different degrees of losing.

I no longer have the slightest hope of ever "winning" a prosocial government here. We're too oligarch captured.

I talk and comment to maintain my sanity in an insane capitalist hellscape I lack the power to change.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 month ago (16 children)

Can someone who identifies as a leftist explain to me what "neoliberal" means? I have no fucking clue at this point.

[–] superniceperson@sh.itjust.works 68 points 1 month ago (5 children)

'Free market,' market-oriented reform capitalism; think Reagan, Bill Clinton, any moderate or conservative before the trump era.

It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s, with more or less a sliding scale between more neoliberal (republicans before 2016) and less neoliberal/more classical liberal (Biden's and Harris's campaign messaging, not Biden's actual actions).

The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they're just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they're just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.

The funny thing is that it's Trump, of all people, who represents the first genuine shift away from neoliberalism for the US in 50+ years. That fucker is downright mercantilist.

Too bad it's a shift away from neoliberalism in the opposite of the direction the leftists wanted to go.

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's a circle tho right. Eventually it will all spin back around? /s

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s

I'm not American so I may be missing something, but I find it hard to say that, for example, Carter and Reagan shared the same economic policy, or Obama and Trump. Only by flattening away any nuance whatsoever would those be called identical.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

First of all, Trump really is very different. All these tariffs are decidedly not neoliberal.

Trump aside, though, Carter, Reagan and Obama really did share broadly similar policy with regards to free trade treaties and whatnot. The Democrats were better on support for unions, but not so much better that they weren't willing to throw them under the bus of cheap foreign labor.

load more comments (1 replies)

they shared the same broad economic policy.

They don't share minute policy, they never will. Republicans have always been a more top down approach, while dems are usually more bottom up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

White Karens who drive around with awareness ribbons on their prius and chastise you for calling black people black instead of "African American" and really think that someone needs to do something about the current social crisis as long as it doesn't upset anyone or anything and as long as everything stays exactly the same, and as long as nobody messes with their investments. They secretly cannot stand people different than themselves and want to retire on a golf course.

load more comments (5 replies)

It mostly means a dedication to deregulation and free markets. More specifically, private-public partnerships. That is the difference between them and Libertarians or Anarcho-Capitalists, since Neoliberals see that the government needs to provide things like courts, military, police, etc. but want to insert private companies to provide government services (e.g. in WW2, soldiers cleaned and laundered the military's uniforms internally, now a private company will do the laundry for a military base at a 50% markup).

As all political ideology, in its original formulation, Neoliberalism was a deviation from liberalism, in the Vienna Circle, by its rejection of "political liberalism". It didn't believe in formal freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Real freedom is the freedom to buy and sell on an unregulated market, real democracy is the ability to vote with your wallet, and real equality is the lack of regulations protecting one group from another. This is why neoliberals of the 1920s and 30s were pro-fascist, since the fascists were so dedicated to privatization and repressing socialists and communists. Thus preserving the freedom of the market, even if later neoliberals want to walk that back.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

basically the meme among the left is that everybody who "dragged their feet" is a "liberal" or "neoliberal"

the left tends to have a problem where they leech off of existing parties and groups, but then immediately throw them under the bus when convenient for their party. This is just an extension of that.

The modern vernacular for liberal is, weird... To say the least, but in short, basically the average democrat is "a liberal" the average voting democrat specifically.

Historically, a liberal is someone who believes in government, and the institutions it provides, the fact that you should respect it, lest you ruin it. And the fact that you can achieve the best outcomes, for all people when everybody is represented. Liberals traditionally don't have an issue with competing, or opposing viewpoints, they have issues with people who don't respect institutions, or don't want them to exist at all. A "Liberal democrat" may be fine with the republican voter, but have a problem with the way the republican base is campaigning, and running the country. Or even specific demographics of the republican voter, like MAGA for example.

Joe Biden is a good example of this, and if you look at his term, he was very, and i mean very successful, had some of the most effective legislative work in a long time. Was popular across the aisle to a significant degree (not MAGA obviously) and respected those that were.

The problem with the modern day left, is that they have outgroup problem. They want everybody who isn't "left" and exactly in sync with their ideology to get fucked, basically. This extends further, since the left doesn't respect the government, or it's institutions, but i've yet to see any good whitepapers talking about a more effective form of government, it's all just performative yapping about why "government bad and leftism good"

I'm not going to dive into the specifics of leftism here, because frankly, not relevant, it's pretty similar to liberalism, minus the government stuff, and some slight differences, but the modern left doesn't in any way shape or form adhere to that.

And before anybody yaps at me, calls me a slur or whatever, i just want to say, i'm not doing a both sides meme, i think the republican party is far, far worse. I think the democratic party is far more suited to running the country effectively, as evidenced by historical terms in office (the left would VEHEMENTLY disagree with me on this one, but the facts back me up here) The problem i think is specifically with the far left, the online far left in particular.

as you may have gleaned, i would consider myself a liberal, specifically a "governmental classical western liberal" if you want to get into the weeds of it, i think the lack of respect for government institution, and the role it plays in society has ruined our country. And there is simply no way back into a respectable position, without reinstating that within the public, i don't care how it's done, it needs to happen. I'm very sure most scholars on this topic would agree with me when i say that this is the most important thing to fix right now.

As a liberal should, i'm not picky about political views or ideology, as long as you respect the one thing keeping this country from grinding to a complete halt and being nothing more than a thought in the wind 20 years down the line. Unfortunately i don't think the right even posses enough brain power or will to comprehend this, and i don't think the far left is physically capable of comprehending this fact fully. (they are more than willing to mentally comprehend it, but they get mad the second anybody crosses them, and calls them wrong, so they never actually give it any serious thought)

Anyway, inb4 people yell at me all angry like.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] PurpleSkull@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago

The middle panel is entirely superfluous. Take that out and you have an accurate representation of both the GOP and DNC.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Neolibs: Half of those people should be women #blm #acab #pride

Ftfy

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I do wonder what the makeup of 100 people would have to look like to be perfectly (or as perfect as possible) representative of all demographics, every way we chop them up. Race, nationality, gender identity, sexuality, permanent disfigurement, financial class, whatever.

[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There's more than 100 possible combinations of race, nationality, gender identity, sexuality disability, etc, so you couldn't accurately represent the whole human population with 100 people.

you don't need to though. Sure you could represent every european ethnicity, but that seems pretty stupid doesn't it? The optimal solution is to just select people from the global population at complete random. Whatever you get is going to be pretty close. Not perfect, but close enough.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago

I am amused by the verbiage of "every way we chop them up" followed by "permanent disfigurement." Which is exactly what they would have if they were chopped up. 😏

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Needs some awareness ribbons too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ileftreddit@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"I'm a centrist"

Actually republican but doesn't want to admit it

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I don't believe for a minute neoliberals would hold to that half women thing.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah you’ll get one board member, maybe, if they feel like it. The steps needed even just to reform capitalism to eliminate gender inequality are considered way too radical by neoliberals.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They sure love to pitch men against women and vice versa deliberately to silence worker rights movements and they're doing it in more ways than most people are willing to admit. Ask them to close the gender pay gap and a neoliberal will tell you about their women quota and how they placed a woman in a "leading" position (she has no power and didn't get a raise) and how progressive they are already. Ask them for a raise and a neoliberal will tell you how women have it worse than you. You're right in a way of course. It's a convenient diversion for them and nothing more.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Back when I lived in Britain and participated in the comments section of The Guardian, I had a local "Feminist" literally tell me that it was more important to flatten the 23% difference in income between the cleaning lady and the night watchman than to flatten the 30,000% difference in income between both of them and the CEO.

That very same crown generally focused on "breaking the glass ceiling" (i.e. get upper middle class and upper class women such as themselves into those 300x minimum wage positions) and I have never once read a concrete suggestion about addressing the gender inequality for the poorer social classes.

That last box of the meme matches exactly my own experience with "Modern Feminists" in Britain.

(Mind you, I lived in other countries and also met older Feminists and they're generally different and their version of Feminism is actually Egalitarian, though I've seen some young women were I live mindlessly ape this Anglo-Saxon neoliberal "Feminism").

They're free-marketeers, if it is useful as branding, they'll do it. If it is not, they are fine with everyone in control being white men.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

HIRE 👏 MORE 👏 WOMEN 👏 GUARDS 👏

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Finally a meme distinguishing libs and neoliberals

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MECHAGODZILLA2@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

Dios mio! (Draws a cross.) A LIBERAL!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

I'm convinced that 95% of people that use the word neoliberal don't know what it means.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel that way about people using liberal as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›