That is indeed the two sides depicted in the meme

horseshoe theory with “I’m not like other girls” characteristics

While this is somewhat true, in all of the west there are only 3 groups currently : liberals, fascists and leftists.

Liberals are a diverse group, ranging from socio-democrat and liberal green parties to libertarian who leans on fascism.

Fascists are all the brands of conservatives who leverage racism, authoritarianism and nationalism.

Leftists are basically the groups opposed to both fascism and liberalism.

Those are 3 objective groups. They are the groups that determine how likely they will cooperate or oppose each other, or how elections will turn.

Some parties will be a bit in between, but that’s merely political communication. In practice a group that promote itself as a middle group is actually leaning right. This means that “leftist liberals” (who range from some green parties and movements to the socio-democrats) will always pick liberals if they must choose between them and the left. Likewise, conservatives and libertariens are leaning toward fascism when given the choice.

The political spectrum is radicalised and triparted. You can deny this model and blur the information, but it usually means that you are leaning more to the right than you are pretending.

This is supposed to be a tetrahedron, but I suck at drawing 3D shapes. Just imagine that anarchism is the top of the tetrahedron and that the triangle is the base.

EDIT: Also, yellow is liberalism, if you can’t read it

EDIT 2: I have no qualm with down-voting, but I would prefer a comment explaining what parts specifically you did not like, so I know how to not make the same mistake in the future.

There’s 2 kinds of upvotes, ⬆ upvotes from comrades, and ⬇ upvotes from liberals

One day these liberals are going to realize the ⬇️ is more telling then a comment

I’ll say it again, in the United States the term “liberal” is used to refer to liberal social ideas NOT liberal economic ideas. To the average US citizen left and liberal are synonyms. This doesn’t mean your definition isn’t correct for academics and the entire rest of the world. But this meme, and this left vs liberal argument for this post, are US based.

Liberal means PRO LIBERTY. Its right there in the fucking name leftoids

Yes, it’s hard for them to understand because of a lifetime of anti-socialist & pro-capitalist propaganda, propaganda which most of them aren’t even aware of, because for them it’s just common sense.

Leftist ≠ Leftwing

Liberalism is Leftwing leaning but isn’t leftist

Bernie has been pretty shitty on foreign policy. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade for 78 straight days, which is why he fell out of favor with his socialist friend, Michael Parenti. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLNQEHbusSA&t=39s

Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.

Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.

Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.

When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.

A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.

Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.

When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.

The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.

The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.

Maybe for those who wish to support bombing foreigners while funnelling the military industry into their state.

Motherfucker parades around like he’s antiwar because he voted “nay” on a single ballot initiative that was already a shoo-in and inconsequential for him to vote against. Literally a couple months later, he voted to further the funding for those military actions.

Bernie has had blood on his hands for 30-40 years now and continues to try to wash it off with more blood.

Someone who pretends to support the poor at home while simultaneously supporting bombing and invading the poor elsewhere sure is a role model, just not a good one.

Before 2017 sure.

I’m okay with it.

I hate those stupid transphobic hats.

Officially named Pussyhats, they were first worn symbolically at the 2017 US Women’s March in Washington DC. Created by Krista Suh and Jayna Zweiman (who met at an LA knitting club), the hat was made in direct response to grab em by the pussy remark from tdump. The original idea was for marchers to knit, sew, or crochet hats to create a visual statement —a sea of pink. “If everyone at the march wears a pink hat, the crowd will be a sea of pink, showing that we stand together, united,” reads the introduction to the knitting pattern on the Pussyhat Project website. The actual hats were created by people who could not attend physically, but wanted to show their support.

Since then, some have come out against it as any one symbol isn’t as all encompassing as they would like, but none have yet given or inspired a good replacement for such a strong show of women’s solidarity.

The Pussy Power Hat is more than just a piece of headwear; it is a symbol of protest, unity, and the power of grassroots movements. The project demonstrated how a simple act of knitting could contribute to a larger political discourse, inspiring similar initiatives worldwide.

Well you see, catgirls are bourgeois decadence /s

nothing, it’s just anti-trans, anti-queer bullshitting.

Edit: after looking it up, if i understand it correctly, it’s misogynistic bullshit? maybe? maybe not? idk

Yeah this is some not-so-subtle propaganda from our komrades.

.ml people will stand by people resisting the imperialism of one country, and then condemn people resisting the imperialism of another, and still won’t realize they are effectively nationalists.

Nuh uh, you’re stupid, in fact you’re the worlds dumbest man.