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.
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.
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.
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.
Arguing is tiring, and here the payoff will be small since the conversation has moved on, few others are reading. I've made my point.
Look on the positive side. Humans being what they are, it's not usually reason that wins debates, but rather the agreeableness of the participants. So you've probably won this one by default.
I think I won both on agreeableness and reason, given that I responded to each of your points and you responded to none of them while calling me a religious fanatic.
Are you not using this alt account to act as a missionary among the non believers?
This is my main account, who do you think I am an alt of?
The hexbear cowbee. But let me rephrase. Are you not engaging in world communities to act as a missionary among the non believers?
The Hexbear Cowbee is a 4 month old account, the Lemmy.ml Cowbee is 9 months old. The Hexbear account is the alt that I go to for fun, the Lemmy.ml account is the one I go to to try to correct misconceptions surrounding Marxism. I usually avoid .world communities though, as they are more prone to censorship, I try to stick to Lemmy.ml or other instances unless I see something particularly egregious on .world.
More prone than who? ml?
Pretty sure i have seen you say this explicitly at some point, but i'll just take these easy to find snippets from 6 days ago, where you talk about what you're up to outside of hexbear, although tbf you were talking about slrpnk users here:
You're doing great! Also with your "reasonable nice guy" facade!
Yep, if you're a Marxist, you risk being censored on .world
Do you disagree with what I said there? I fully believe solarpunk is especially at risk of opportunism, I fully back that, and even some of their users agree that they should do more to combat that, such as linking solarpunk theory and trying to be more unified in message.
Secondly, what do you mean by "reasonable nice guy facade?" Do you think I have been unreasonable or secretly evil? What's your point?
"Marxism is when you make false claims about genocide in order to make a false equivocation between literal fascists and liberals, because to you both of those things are exactly the same."
There are those - like Jules Verne, HG Wells, and yes Orwell - who can see far into the future not because they are fucking magicians or whatever, but bc they allowed themselves to see clearly. Which in turn I think comes from mental discipline to ruthlessly weed out the false thoughts that would choke the life out of the true ones.
Anyway I'm full of trite quotes in this reply I guess but even so, those who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it, and lately I (who lives in America) am very worried about that thought... and yet there too it is history that gives me comfort. No nation (afaict) has ever survived devolving into a 2-party state, but even Rome fell too once upon a time... long may it live.
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
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:
And it also defines it as third position, as per the article I linked earlier. Again, some define fascism as "mommy said I can't go to the party" so oooooohhhhh.
Fact of the matter is fascists, if you've ever talked to a real one, are neither capitalist nor communist (again, hence that whole "World War Two" fiasco they teamed up for.) Thus "third position."
No, the article you linked says "The Third Position is a set of neo-fascist political ideologies". It does not say that fascism in general is neither left or right. I'm not talking about the word "fascist" used as an insult.
"From the article I linked:"
Jfc lmao. You're wrong, deal with it loser. Neither right nor left, "Third Position."
Your quote from the article describes the Third Position, not fascism in general. It does not say that fascism in general is neither left nor right. No need to get mad because you misread a Wikipedia article.
Why don't you wait until they're all up quicksilver, don't have shit else to do tonight but troll on lemmy?
When you link a Wikipedia article, you can expect others to read it and call you out on it when it doesn't say what you claim it says. Wikipedia is very consistent with labelling fascism as far-right.
https://politicalresearch.org/2016/12/19/what-third-position
https://fascipedia.org/index.php/Third_positionism (holy shit, they have their own wiki?! Well here they are literally saying it themselves I guess ffs)
Is your gripe that the OG nazis hadn't invented the term yet, and so technically it's neonazis (the kind that exist today, well, outside of fucking nursing homes anyway) who are the third position? If so quit your semantic bullshit, go troll someone else.
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.