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/[email protected] 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.
Neither .world nor .shitjustworks are “right leaning” they just hate the tankies most vocally lmao. Neither would it make too much sense to call a tankie “left” leaning given their raging hard on for authoritarianism. I also think most of Blahaj would be offended by being lumped in with them.
Lemmy.world is extremely liberal, I wouldn't classify it as left-leaning. Both .world and sh.itjust.works are generally liberal, maintaining MeanwhileOnGrad leads to more right-wing people. I did not say far-right, or even right-wing, but right-leaning.
Marxists are absolutely left wing, not sure what your point is here. Marx and Engels were both called "authoritarian" by their contemporaries so much that Engels wrote On Authority. I don't think it makes sense to separate Marxism from Leftism, and redefine leftism as Anarchism.
And you expect me to take anything you say after that seriously
When I say Leftist, I am using the typical definition, anti-Capitalist. Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, and all their myriad forms.
When I say right, I am using the typical definition, supportive of Capitalism. Social Democrats, Liberals, American Libertarians, fascists, and all their myriad forms.
Considering Lemmy is an international site, it doesn't make sense to use the Overton Window. If we went by, say, the American Overton Window, but another user lived in, say, Spain, there's a significant difference there. That's why I am using the standard definitions, and not going off of any one country's Overton Window.
For two of the words this is not a typical definition. Social democrats do not code as "right" anywhere in the world. And liberals are only "right" when viewed through a partisan US-progressive lens, or else perhaps in southern Europe (where the word is mostly an economic term). Elsewhere they would be closer to left or center. This whole discussion illustrates the limited usefulness of the left-right axis at describing ideas.
Are you trying to say that wherever Social Democrats are found, they are the most left available? That may track, but again, Social Democrats want to "harness Capitalism," it isn't pro-Socialism nor anti-Capitalism, hence my categorization.
Liberalism is the ideological framework for Capitalism, this is, again, supportive of Capitalism and against Socialism.
This is a bit reductive. I accept that liberalism and capitalism are closely intertwined in the historical reading. But the fact is that capitalism won the economic battle, for better and (I agree) for worse. Attempts to replace it completely, in an interconnected world, invariably end in disaster or (China) in a reversion to capitalism. Just look at the list of them. To me this whole question feels like a disconnected high-school philosophy debate.
I don't think this is a good place to have this convo, but I firmly disagree with what you've said here. I understand if you don't want to, but if you want to discuss this further you can shoot me a DM.
Seriously? I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince the people reading us. That's the way a forum debate works! But I admire your earnestness.
My biggest issue is with these two statements:
For the former, I disagree because AES states still exist, and Marx's analysis has retained it's usefulness at full capacity.
For the latter, most AES states were and are dramatic improvements on previous conditions, such as the fascist slaver Batista regime in Cuba compared to now, where life expectancy is 50% higher than under Batista and disparity is far lower.
As for the PRC, it isn't correct to say it "reverted to Capitalism." It's more correct to say that Mao failed to jump to Communism, and Deng reverted back to a more Marxist form of Socialism, compatible with China's existing level of development. The Private Sector is a minority of the economy in the PRC, the majority is in the public sector. Here's an excerpt from Engels in The Principles of Communism:
Mao tried to skip the necessary developmental stage. Marx wasn't a Utopian, he didn't believe Socialism was good because it was more moral, but because Capitalism creates the conditions for Socialism, ie public ownership and central planning, through formation of monopolist syndicates. Marx says as much himself in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The PRC increases ownership of and eventually folds into the Public Sector companies and industries that form these monopolist syndicates.
For further reading re: China, Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good modern essay. For elaboration on Marx and the transition to Socialism, I recommend Why Public Property?
The reason I didn't want to have this conversation on Lemmy.world is that I have had similar comments to this one removed for "misinformation."
Do you not think your remarks have a bit of a religious flavor to them? Quoting a couple of eccentric academics from 150 years ago as if transmitting their divine revelation. Defending your interpretation of their holy words as if you were a lawyer or a priest. Why not just look to first principles instead, to the values you considerate important, rather than citing a gospel like this?
I must admit that I am puzzled by people's determination to defend the record of communism. It's not worth defending. There are much better ideas for how to replace capitalism, though - spoiler - none of them involve a bloody revolution. This doesn't mean that Marx had nothing interesting to say. Of course he did. His description of society was revolutionary. But the prescription was disastrous and I feel we would do well to just move on from it at last.
I quoted both Marx and Engels, while linking modern analysis and theory at the end. Marxism has a long history with numerous writers, when you say the PRC has "reverted to Capitalism" it's important to point out that they have more accurately reverted to Socialism. Marxism isn't a religion, it's a method of analysis.
I don't know what you mean by "look to principles instead." I have values and principles, I desire humanity to move beyond Capitalism and onto Socialism because Capitalism reaches a dead-end when it gets to the stage it is at today: dying Imperialism and Monopolist Syndicates devoid of competition. Socialism is how we move beyond.
I have yet to see anything succeed in replacing Capitalism without a revolution, so I'm curious what you are referring to.
Again, post-revolution, Marxism has dramatically improved conditions compared to previous squalor. It isn't correct to say AES states have been disastrous, especially when comparing to the horrendous pre-Socialist conditions. AES isn't a utopian paradise either, but to call them "disastrous" is a bit outside of reality. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti.
This feels like arguing with a Jehovah's witness. To your credit, you're not getting annoyed or abusive in the face of my contradiction. But then that's also a hallmark of religious people: absolute certitude, which provides a certain peace of mind.
I'll admit that I had to look up "AES", which appears to refer to countries that pass the magical litmus test of Marx-Engels Compatibility.
I will simply sum up my own analysis. The precise terminology of the PRC's political system is unimportant. What is important is that wherever the recipes of Marx have been tried, the result has been violence, brutality, oppression, famine, economic ruin. I say that as a student of history. Literally: it was my degree. But the facts are in the public domain for all to see. And so I agree with Orwell, who saw it before so many others: there comes a point where you have to accept that the thing is irredeemable, and instead try something else.
That's really all I have to say on the subject. Of course I respect your right to your own viewpoint.
What happens if you turn this around?
The precise terminology of the US's political system is unimportant. What is important is that wherever the recipes of [Liberalism] have been tried, the result has been violence, brutality, oppression, famine, economic ruin.
This is all true of course. So what then? Do you also reject Liberalism?
By no reasonable definition of the word "liberalism" has it caused those things on a scale remotely approaching that of communism. This is not controversial.
Has it not? Has it not caused the death of 1 million people in Indonesia? Has it not caused 7 million excess deaths due to "shock-therapy" in Russia alone? Has it not caused the brutality, violence and oppression of the "dictatorships" that the CIA installed in Latin America? Has it not caused countless famines? Has it not caused the economic ruin of Africa and Latin America?
Then as a student of history, are you saying the Tsars, Kuomintang, Batista regime, and so forth were better for their citizenry than the Communists? It's very well-recorded just how bad the previous regimes were and how dramatically material conditions improved post-revolution.
The fact that I have carefully cited multiple different sources from multiple periods and patiently responded to your bold-faced attacks makes me a "Jehovah's Witness?" What about those supposed "much better alternatives to Capitalism?" Where are those? I have responded to every point you've made, and your response has been to belittle me and take the high-ground without responding in kind. That's rude.
Except in Portugal, where the conservative party calls themselves Social Democrats.
True but that is a proper name, not the generic definition. Russia's Liberal Democrats are ultranationalists.
Hang on now. Fascists are historically the "third position" (which is why both the left and the right got together in about 1939 to stomp their collective shit in.) They're neither "right" nor "left."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position
Fascism is described as both "Capitalism in decay" and as "Imperialism turned inward." It served and serves the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat, and historically arises when the Petite Bourgeoisie is facing proletarianization. That's why the most violently MAGA are small business owners and the like, and why they think immigrants are the ones proletarianizing them.
I highly recommend reading the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti, which covers the material conditions surrounding fascism and who it served.
Fascism has been described as a teacher telling a student to shut up in class too, just because someone says something doesn't make it true.
Sure, so can you explain what you disagree with about what I have said, and why you believe fascism to not be left nor right? I am aware of "Third Positionists," they serve Capitalists and arise from Capitalist decay.
It's going to be useless to explain it to you, you've already made up your mind, and since I'm no longer shitting and have things to do today I'm going to have to decline your request to waste my time explaining natsocs.
What gives you the right to call me a Nazi for saying "fascism is right-wing?" That's incredibly rude, entirely uncalled for, and utterly unfounded in reality.
When the hell did I do that? Lmao dude are you ok? Talk about unfounded in reality lmao:
Where did I call you a nazi? Is it "it's useless to explain it to you, you've already made up your mind?" So Nazi = Guy who already made up his mind? Ooook.
Or was it "I'm done shitting," and nazis are people I talk to while shitting? Seems weird to define that way but ok I guess.
Or maybe "decline your request to waste my time explaining natsocs?" So, then, anyone I won't waste my time talking to, they must be nazis? I mean yeah they usually do fall into that category too but it isn't exclusive to them.
Ah, I misread, I thought you said "explaining to Natsocs like you" and not "explaining Natsocs to you." My bad, I apologize.
That being said, you were the one coming in to dispute my claim that fascism is right-wing, and the second I pushed back you said it would be a waste of time to explain, I just think that's a bit silly. Did you expect me to fully agree with you instantaneously?
Ah ok no harm no foul then!
And I provided a link you didn't read, you provided a link I didn't read. Fair's fair. Plus it isn't actually about convincing you, it's about leaving a record to let other people read and not just take your words at face value. You're too far gone.
For clarity, I did read the link you sent. I've read it before.
That's fine, I am doing the same for you. I doubt you'll be convinced, but it's important to correct blatant misconceptions about Marxism IMO.
Sure, and maybe I have some, but they were put there by "marxists" I've argued with in the past. I'm sure they're no true marxist of course lol. If people stick around here long enough they'll see what I'm talking about for themselves.
If I see nonsense like that I'll correct it, but I maintain that it's more likely than not a misunderstanding of what was stated, if you aren't going to link an example.
Fascists paint themselves as being a third position that supercedes the left-right dichotomy, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Everything about it is right-wing and it's not actually as incompatible with capitalism as fascists claim. Every fascist regime has partnered up with capitalists, who often support them into power in the first place.
Since you linked to another Wikipedia article, you should know that Wikipedia defines fascism as far-right:
By the standards of US and Canadian politics, yeah we're to the left of center. But "center" has been dragged to the right so far that it's prompting this whole argument. The Overton window had shifted so far that liberalism - which, in a current context, supports relatively unregulated capitalism and trickle down economics - there's a whole swath of political ideologies that's basically nonexistent within our modern day electoral politics. I'm somewhere in the anarchist range and choose to engage with electoral politics - if they chose to participate within the context of a FPTP voting system with two options, we'd find ourselves voting for the same candidate despite our likely highly differing political beliefs. In many countries that left wing is less smashed, the range of political discourse is much wider.
Shit just works is to the left side of, but comfortably within, the current Canadian Overton window. In a global sense, the instance is kinda to the right, in the same way that Bernie Sanders is moderate by western European standards.
Cowbee is notorious for not actually answering questions, just throwing up the same articles to read and asking people to DM them to continue the conversation. Make what you will of that info - are deeds done in the light of logical discourse inherently "better" than those done in darkness, i.e. are facts that can stand up to scrutiny somehow more "correct" than those that can only be whispered in the dark to those most vulnerable individuals still living in the cave?
You'll note that I did end up continuing the conversation publicly in this thread. I have only once actually taken a conversation into DMs, with Blaze, whom they can probably back me up on. When I say "feel free to DM if you have any questions" regarding theory I have linked, it's because I don't expect anyone to immediately buzz off and read a book or article and then get right back, it's an open offer to continue the conversation at any point in time.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by not actually answering questions? In this thread you can see it''s the exact opposite, I am curious what you mean by that.
Finally, when I make my arguments and leave links for supplemental reading, it isn't a requirement to continue conversation. It's supplemental, in case they have doubts or wish to learn more beyond a simple Lemmy thread. If it's necessary reading, I usually quote a relevant paragraph and link the main work.
Being full of anticommunists who call anyone left of Biden a tankie makes an instance right wing in my eyes at least
They… don’t though? Unless you’re pretending saying “voting for [not the democratic candidate] is a vote for Trump” is now apparently right wing and not just a basic understanding of how first past the post works.
Like, your definition is both wrong in terms of what right wing means, and not even descriptive of either. They’re just not tankie shitholes so I guess that makes them look bad to you?
So accusing left wingers of being right wing is okay as far as you're concerned if it's about an election
Pointing out that from a left wing perspective, Biden and the Democrats are doing bad things and their supporters are right wing: wrong, not descriptive, belongs in a tankie shit hole.
K
That’s… not an accurate characterization.
I would have voted for Sanders in a heartbeat. And a lot of other (Americans) on my instance would too. The disdain is more targeted and nuanced than that. A whole lot of us on sh.it just.works have a reasonably solid understanding of the difference between communism and authoritarian communism, and are also often geopolitical nerds to one degree or another. This often leads to us doing our best to combat what we see as bullshit disinformation and misrepresentation when and where we see it.
The vitriol we have towards tankies is specifically a result of:
When looked at that way, it’s a lot closer to modern Iron Front ideology (anti-monarchy; anti-fascist; anti-authoritarian communist).
That's... what? What?! WHAT!?
To anyone else reading, note the @lemmy.ml after their name. There are only so many times people of intelligence can hear the most batshit insane things on Lemmy without either willfully losing IQ points or else blocking the lemmy.ml instance.
Unfortunately, that does next to nothing, bc you'll still see every single batshit insane comment like the above. Every. Single. One. And while it might be a bug, you can sometimes get replies from them too (while other times blissfully not).
Maybe I'll make an account on Lemmy.cafe, which is the only instance I've ever heard of that has actually defederated from lemmy.ml. Though I'm holding out more hope for Sublinks, Piefed, and Mbin too to help address such issues.
Stay safe folks - election season is coming and there are some who want to fuck you up if at all possible (not necessarily the above comment, just in general), don't let it happen!
If you're planning on leaving I won't miss you passive aggressively using only neutral pronouns for me or calling me insane.
So... blocking an instance as a user just hides the instances communities, if I'm remembering the implementation details right. It doesn't block interaction with the instances users. Stupidly misleading.
You'll still need to block the users one by one.
Sadly, I had quite the list going, but upon blocking the instance, decided to clean up all the individual ones from that instance. Oops. Surely a "block" would imply some sort of... I dunno, "blocking" action, one might expect?
Also, at least on 0.19.3, I would not receive notifications from people on those instances. But now on 0.19.5, I do. So... there's that fun little tidbit of knowledge: what little blocking there used to be, has become less so over time.
Oh well, at least this way I get to read the most batshit insane replies to things and laugh at them. Once someone is aware, it's not really shocking, compared to a new user who would have no clue - e.g. they could be conversing with an actual PhD scientist on mander.xyz one moment and then somehow jump all the way to "no awkshually you should drink bleach, and follow up by drinking sunshine, bc (this one time at band camp?) I heard that kills the Rona". Which sounds enormously exaggerated I know, but just remember: there are people out there eating raw meat and drinking unpasteurized milk without a care in the world, even in the face of the avian flu situation that seems to have made its way into just about every animal on earth including extremely remote polar bears and such.
Disinformation, unlike misinformation that is more often simply a mistake, is often designed to be outright deadly, to the unprepared (though less for the sake of the actual deaths, and more for how they would then catapult the issue into the media to receive feed-forward attention).