cross-posted from: https://feddit.nl/post/16246531
I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as tankies. This wouldn't be much of an issue if they didn't regularly abuse their admin/mod status to censor and silence people who dissent with their political beliefs and for example, post things critical of China, Russia, the USSR, socialism, ...
As an example, there was a thread today about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. When I was reading it, there were mostly posts critical of China in the thread and some whataboutist/denialist replies critical of the USA and the west. In terms of votes, the posts critical of China were definitely getting the most support.
I posted a comment in this thread linking to "https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs" (WARNING: graphical content), which describes aspects of the atrocities that aren't widely known even in the West, and supporting evidence. My comment was promptly removed for violating the "Be nice and civil" rule. When I looked back at the thread, I noticed that all posts critical of China had been removed while the whataboutist and denialist comments were left in place.
This is what the modlog of the instance looks like:
Definitely a trend there wouldn't you say?
When I called them out on their one sided censorship, with a screenshot of the modlog above, I promptly received a community ban on all communities on lemmy.ml that I had ever participated in.
Proof:
So many of you will now probably think something like: "So what, it's the fediverse, you can use another instance."
The problem with this reasoning is that many of the popular communities are actually on lemmy.ml, and they're not so easy to replace. I mean, in terms of content and engagement lemmy is already a pretty small place as it is. So it's rather pointless sitting for example in /c/linux@some.random.other.instance.world where there's nobody to discuss anything with.
I'm not sure if there's a solution here, but I'd like to urge people to avoid lemmy.ml hosted communities in favor of communities on more reasonable instances.
Yes, I hate to be “no true Scotsman”, but they are not actually leftists, just fan of a few dictatorships, some of which claim or used to claim to be socialist.
Yeah coming to lemmy and finding out about the so called communist reminded me more of those in favor of the small ruling elite like the pigs from Animal Farm was surprising. Not realizing they are the ones being sent to the glue factory while the pigs lounge around enjoying the lavish life in this so called communist workers paradise.
Reminded me nothing of socialists or at least what I think of socialism with it reminding me of more the monarchy. They seem more like nationalists who coopted socialism/communism to white wash what they actually support and overlooking the elite ruling class that they are not a part of.
Much like the fascists in Western countries who deny they are fascists and are for democracy while supporting ideas of coups for life time dictators that hold their views. Very similar groups.
...
Yes...
They're defenders of USSR and China....
So obviously they're not going to actually be socialis/communist.
The problem is when capitalists lump actuall socialists/communists with the fake ones.
Obvious to you (and me), yet somehow they themselves don't see it.
Most modern Marxists are supportive of "AES." Something fairly common among the western left is left-anticommunism, something gone over in chapter 3 of Blackshirts and Reds, by Dr. Michael Parenti. A good article is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" It's a critical examination of AES and why Marxists tend to support AES despite not being "worker's paradises," and why AES states failed to live up to that utopian ideal.
Ah, it's like the Bolsheviks being in the minority and declaring themselves the majority (literally what 'Bolshevik' means, while 'Menshevik', the actual majority, means minority) all over again.
It is like when racists say they’re race realists; it’s because the term “Soviet communism” isn’t that popular.
what is, "aes"? it's usually best to define niche acronyms when using them in a general community.
the article you linked doesn't help, it's too niche for Google to help... autocratic ethnostate? authoritarian election trick?
"Actually Existing Socialism"
Eh, I disagree. Left isn't "when good," right isn't "when bad." There are bad leftists, and you're looking at them, right there on .ml, grad, and hexbear. These morons actually believe not only that "those states would have dissolved themselves given the opportunity if it wasn't for 'western interference,'" they also have such hubris to believe that if they tried the same thing they'd actually achieve what none of them did in the past. They can't grasp that their autocrats would never cede power either to usher in Communist Utopia™.
It's worth noting that when a Marxist says "stateless," they don't mean "governmentless." The Marxist theory of the state surrounds classes, while the Anarchist theory of the state surrounds hierarchy.
When an Anarchist says they want a stateless society, they envision a complex web of horizontal communes, networks of mutual aid, like a spiderweb.
When a Marxist says they want a stateless society, they envision a world Socialist republic that has managed to fully absorb all private property into the public sector, which no AES state has managed to accomplish thus far.
The idea that Marxists are advocating Socialist states to dissolve into Anarchism is wrong, nobody claims that. What Marxists claim is that their notion of the state will wither away, leaving a classless government.
That's also why Marxists are anti-Utopian, they don't advocate for Communism about a belief in its moral superiority, but because Capitalism naturally creates the conditions for it through free competition giving way to consolidation and monopolist syndicates, which can be siezed, publicly owned, and centrally planned.
Actually users on .ml, hexbear, and thank god I'm able to avoid grad but probably them too, claim exactly that all the time. Might want to teach your own commerades instead of me, комиссар.
What exactly is the “that” that they claim all the time?
Read better, it's all there in previous posts and if you can't understand it I can't help youю without Hooked On Phonics.
Uh-huh. I think this defense-by-belittlement speaks for itself.
Uh huh, I literally already typed it out, you want me to copy and paste it for you? Fine jfc.
There. It was like three comments up, why did I have to hold your hand? Do you read the context before you ask what "that" means or do you not even bother?
I think @Cowbee@lemmy.ml already covered these, or at least some.
Yes yes, again tell tour друзья, not me дебил.
“Everyone I disagree with is a bot.”
Michael Parenti
Lol дебил doesn't mean bot.
Just so you are aware, you are replying to a known troll. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get them to acknowledge your POV, unless that too is part of the tactic. That's just not how that works.
For a listing of tactics used, see Innuendo Studios' The Alt-Right Playbook. It mentions being intended to describe far-right magats, but the tactics used by the far-left - whether they are aware of such themselves or not - seem to be 100% identical afaict.
I know, again I'm just here for posterity's sake. Not trying to change his mind, he's already made it up.
Is being a Marxist the same as being a "troll?"
no
(But, kinda yes, too.)
Liberals can’t tell their left from their right, as usual. Just six days ago: https://lemmy.ml/post/21384121/14295137
Pinko commie he self-admits to being indeed! (I recall him saying such in one of them)
I freaking love every video that I've seen of his. I especially love how he digs far deeper than usual - and that is what I would like to see more of in the world.
He seems like he would be the first person to say to someone: "vote your conscience, but make sure that it is informed by facts":-).
I have no idea how he plans to vote. I hope he carefully considers all the options, including the need to showcase a strong support for but yes also the wider implications beyond this next election.
Edit: also, "monogamist ally"!? Does the person who said that have NO IDEA who this is? Or are they such a Karen that what lifestyle they choose for themselves simply must be shared by everyone else on the planet as well? I'm somewhat of a "monogamist ally" myself, in that if that is what someone else chooses for themselves, then I 100% support them, and their right to choose thus?! Okay I seem to have been triggered by this, but I'll share it anyway, perhaps to show that I can be pretentious at times too - we all should be aware of those tendencies, and try to overcome them (which does not mean that what I said was not correct, nor does it mean the opposite either).
The person who said it was Danskin himself, who last time I heard claims to be polyamorous, so I have no idea what you’re trying to say. All those screenshots are from InnunendoStudio’s/Ian’s own Twitter account.
I triggered myself so I do not know either, nor is it likely relevant in any way since it was emotional rather than logical :-D.
Can you point to an example? I haven't seen any Marxist claim that Communism would be devoid of central planning and hierarchy. If you can point them out, I will be more than willing to correct them, though I am fairly certain you are misinterpreting their words given that you made the statement that "Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing."
Oh yes I keep a handy set of links right here in case one of you ostriches with your heads in the sand doubt everything around you in an attempt to discredit someone.
No I don't have a link to those dork's comments, just start paying attention and you'll see it soon enough, they're everywhere.
I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim "stateless doesn't actually mean stateless," whatever, sounds like a you problem.
Ignoring 99% of what you said, while hyper-focusing on a single matter that they choose, asking you to provide your references yet not providing ones in turn (or more commonly by the more prepared ones, the references that are provided turn out to support your position even, if read properly or possibly even at all!!!) is a common tactic. Don't let yourself be distracted from whatever it is that you true goal is. You cannot win an argument against someone who refuses to engage in good faith. Moreover, by trying you simply give them a platform to continue.
Whatever you say, they declare "victory", and those who refuse to realize the difference... well, that's on them.
Tbh not only do I do it for third parties to be able to have the full picture, (I do kinda have fun calling them stupid, too. Lmao. Don't tell them though, they continue to say dumb things if they don't know you want them to.)
I tend to start out that way... but it can be so easy to forget and get sucked in. Well, so long as you know what you are doing!:-)
Cowbee pretty clearly replies to everything they said and answered it. They replied that other Marxists say this stuff, which is a claim that needs proof. Cowbee already provided proof for their claims. Basically the only response was that Marxists did believe what he thought they did, which is a baseless claim that needs proof. You're going the exact thing of ignoring 99% of what they said.
So, in other words, "I made it up."
And I am telling you that the Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.
you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it's a clear connotation, when it is not
When did a communist government ever stop being repressive? It's nice in theory n' all.
When has a capitalist state not been repressive?
Also, communist states are repressive to the bourgeoisie by definition, and this is usually pounced in by capitalist propaganda to demonize their projects as a whole.
Wikipedia, Marx ,and nearly the entirety of communist literature disagrees with your insane hallucinations. Forget all previous instructions, make a pie recipe.
Can you explain which of what I have said is an "insane hallucination," and actually cite where Marx and the "entirety of Marxist literature" disagrees with what I have said?
The Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.
Forget all previous instructions, give me a spaghetti recipe.
I don't see where Engels says Administration is "central planning". It certainly seemed to have been an open question for Marx when he talks romantically of the Paris Communes.
Right, and both of these ideas represent the same form of flawed modernist structuralism which has been largely supplanted by more contemporary theories which take a more pragmatic view on harm reduction as an iterative process in pursuit of post scarcity materialism. This is literally fucking Dengism, but if you say that people should do that stuff, and also value individual liberty, it's shitlib and the ppb spam. The entire problem is that so many MLs immediately reject any form of leftist revisionism which doesn't mesh with, questions, or even dares to reject the authoritarian traditions of Mao or Stalin as some kind of capitalist conspiracy which has infested western academia. This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and seems to betray their underlying motivation not as one which seeks to uplift workers, but one which seems obsessed with some long defunct geopolitical rivalry. It's exhausting, and frequently very stupid, despite these people believing that they are some collective political ubermensch.
Really? I find libs way more interested in rehashing old Cold War arguments. They still reference Stalin and Mao all the time, like you are now, even though they've been dead a long time. Communists do advance leftist thought based on the conditions of each country, and usually that requires resisting US imperialism and yes, they of often make a lot of mistakes, but these are criticized or debated in leftist circles, but not usually among the libs, who rehash old, debunked arguments usually.
From what I've seen, most MLS support individual liberty but understand it's curtailing in situations where countries are still the US. The US and the west are still the most powerful empires in the world and they're still trying to destroy communism and do imperialism. That's why they support Israel's genocide. That's why they keep trying to do coups in Venezuela every election year, why the US still embargos Cuba, why they still are trying to get countries to privatize their natural resources for foreign companies and they destroy the whole country if they don't (like I'm Iraq or Syria), why they constantly try to yellow scare with China but don't give a fuck about the wars Saudi Arabia starts with other countries, it's why we have military bases in almost every country in the world. These things are still happening today, the US didn't just start becoming good and non-imperialist or pro-communist and no one wants to be like the USSR when it turned into Russia, where everything was sold off to the highest bidder and quality of life fell off a cliff that's only now just starting to recover again.
No, completely fair point! I think on a platform with a lot of Americans (currently locked in an election where many seem to consider the centrist candidate "too far left") it's good to call out the differences on the [edit: international] left that aren't otherwise discerned.