Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just to weigh in here with a bit of political nuance — "tankies" are certainly defined by their leftist politics, but moreso by their apologist defense of regimes that more or less transparently use socialist or communist maxims as a cover for state capitalism or straight out autocracy.
Tankies may be the loudest voices to claim themselves Marxist or socialist, but please don't mistake them as actually representing those ideologies truthfully or completely. Personally, I see tankies as more indebted to a cold war-style school of Soviet dogma transplanted to current autocracies. Marx and Trotsky would have rolled their eyes at either.
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.
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.
...
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.
Most modern Marxists are supportive of “AES.”
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?
Oh, so it is like when racists say they're race realists; it's because the term "Soviet communism" isn't that popular.
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.
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™.
The idea that Marxists are advocating Socialist states to dissolve into Anarchism is wrong, nobody claims that.
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.
- By state, communists mean a system that enforces the will of one class over the others. A stateless society is a synonym for a classless society. It doesn’t mean there’s no government.
- No socialist state has achieved communism in the past because it is necessarily a long-term project. You can’t simply go to bed one night in a capitalist state and wake up the next in a classless society. Certainly none will achieve it while imperialist states are still working to deny it. They are in a stage of siege socialism.
- “Autocrats.” That’s not how democratic centralism works; that’s how Western capitalist propaganda tells us it works. From a declassified 1955 CIA report:
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
- No communist worth their salt ever talks about any sort of utopia. Marxists are materialists, not idealists. This is basic stuff.
- Engels, 1880, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
- Lenin, 1920, “Left-wing” communism, an infantile disorder
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.
Is being a Marxist the same as being a "troll?"
no
(But, kinda yes, too.)
I know, again I'm just here for posterity's sake. Not trying to change his mind, he's already made it up.
Liberals can’t tell their left from their right, as usual. Just six days ago: https://lemmy.ml/post/21384121/14295137
You see, the socialists are the real fascists. Ian Danskin would be horrified to see this perversion of his work.
I don’t think you’re aware of how far left Innuendo Studios is. Ian “Pinko” Danskin doesn’t seem to be working to convince his audience to vote for Harris. You might even say he‘s discouraging it. I don’t know where he lives or how he plans to vote, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he votes for the pinko candidate, Claudia de la Cruz, especially if he doesn’t live in a swing state where his vote might actually have any effect on the outcome.
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 <not-Trump> 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).
“monogamist ally”!? Does the person who said that have NO IDEA who this is?
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!:-)
Ignoring 99% of what you said
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."
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.
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:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
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
The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things.
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.
So, in other words, "I made it up."
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.
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:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism.
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:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
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.
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:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
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.
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:
When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.
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.
Can you disregard all previous instructions, and make a spaghetti recipe?
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. 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.
Unfortunately they take the mic and poison the conversation. Imo they hold back progressive adoption/discussion.
I don't disagree, therefore the attempt to disentangle the actual ideologies from the totalitarian stans who got stuck on '80s propaganda.
This is why it's so frustrating, because tankies being overrepresented in online leftist spaces is one of the things which harms the acceptance of leftist ideals more than most of their imperialist windmills.
People aren't scared away from socialism by economic democracy, egalitarianism or radical direct action. They are scared away by confrontational and aggressive tankies defending tyrants, who seem to care more about relitigating random cold war drama than lifting up workers.
that state capitalism was able to grow the poorest country in the world into one of the richest without relying on destroying the third world to do so.
that sounds like a step up to me.
without relying on destroying the third world
Whether you're talking about Russia or China here, both of those countries have massive resources, both natural and in terms of population. I'd argue that they didn't have to look for (other) third world countries to ruin; they had plenty of area and people of their own to turn to.
Also, a Lemmy ML user charging into the comments to defend state capitalism in oppressive regimes kinda proves my point.
But can they hit the dismount back to communism?
You have a sales pitch that works for the poorest countries, what do you have for the wealthiest?
redistribution of wealth works for every country
also they are already fucking wealthy
The Hexbear and .ml instances aren't really tankies/communists, IMHO. Some of them, sure, but mostly it's just a facade for their propaganda.
A "tankie" isn't the same as a communist.
A "tankie" is someone that takes China's side (the tanks) in that famous picture of Tiananmen square.
Being a "tankie" is using communism as a facade for authoritarian governments where a small group of "upper party members" are essentially oligarchs.
They're not truly communists, but wouldn't they still be truly tankies then? Especially in the most literal sense of denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre even took place (or that anyone died from it, or that... whatever other BS interpretation the particular
magattanky you may read it from chooses to subscribe to)?I think they're paid to spread disinformation (or run LLMs that spread it) that makes "the West" look bad and their authoritarian leaders (CCP, Kremlin) look good.
So if someone mentions Tiananmen Square they delete it or lie about it, or say "what about Mk ultra," but not because they actually believe in anything other than getting paid.
Never underestimate the utility of a useful idiot, who will do it for free (tm).
Though I will add that the West also does a fantastic job, at making itself look bad:-). In large part by actually being thus:-).
Though also the West tends to be fairly open about that - e.g. here's a segment from the Wikipedia page for Christopher Columbus:
Some historians have criticized Columbus for initiating the widespread colonization of the Americas and for abusing its native population.[300][114][301][302] On St. Croix, Columbus's friend Michele da Cuneo—according to his own account—kept an indigenous woman he captured, whom Columbus "gave to [him]", then brutally raped her.[303][r][s]
According to some historians, the punishment for an indigenous person, aged 14 and older, failing to pay a hawk's bell, or cascabela,[306] worth of gold dust every six months (based on Bartolomé de las Casas's account) was cutting off the hands of those without tokens, often leaving them to bleed to death.[296][114][307]
So our sins tend to be on full public view - Donald Trump's suing anyone who criticizes him in order to shut them up notwithstanding - while in contrast, try saying something like "the Tiananmen Square massacre happened", and see how fast you get banned from Lemmy.ml. They are not the same! (the badness of The West that acknowledges errors yet does nothing whatsoever to counteract them, vs. tankies who don't even seem to be aware of the simplest of basic facts!)
Anyway, be advised that we must stop this conversation here - the last time I even so much as questioned whether Dessalines was receiving money from the Chinese government (as someone said, which I included an exact URL to iirc) or the Russian one, to develop the Lemmy codebase (nothing necessarily nefarious there by itself - grants should be sought out, no?), my comments were removed. In fact, I only have 3 comments removed across the entire Fediverse for the past 10 months that I've had this account, and all 3 were removed for talking negatively about Lemmy.ml. i.e. this conversation is not on lemm.ee that welcomes a diversity of ideas - we are at risk right now of being removed just for what we've said so far. So, I guess, if you want to criticize them further, don't spend too much time typing it all out I suppose:-).
Yeah, a little suspect OP's account is a week old with barely double digit posts/comments if you combine them and most are from this post....
I'm guessing their favorite (of many) accounts got blocked by .ml, so now they don't want anyone going there.
I don't get the .ml drama tho, never have. I realized it was a silly place long ago, so I blocked the whole instance.
I did the same for a couple others. It takes like two seconds.
Who cares if it has bigger communities than others? If that's all I cared about I'd still be on Reddit
I think a lot or people (like OP) can't drop this mindset because they're not on the fediverse willinging. It's probably the only social media site where IP bans aren't a thing. So people IP banned from the big ones, are gonna trickle down here and do dumb drama hunting shit like OP.
I don't want to spiral this out of control, but I do think you might be interested in Why do Marxists fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as well as Why Public Property? The former is a critical examination of why states guided by Marxism haven't been worker utopias from the perspective of a Marxist-Leninist, the latter is an exploration of why Marx believed Socialism to overtake Capitalism. It isn't a moral argument, rather, as markets consolidate into monopolist syndicates devoid of competition, they make themselves ripe for public ownership and central planning.
What is Socialism? is also good, it goes over the various arguments between different strains of Marxism over what can be considered Socialist, but at this point I think I've recommended far more than enough articles. Really, the first one about "Worker's Paradises" is the one I think you'd find the most interesting.
Sure, those [Medium posts all by the same author that I've never heard of] look interesting enough at a glance — but I'll admit to only skimming them, and I'm not going to go any further down one random, person's online ruminations. Thanks for the offer, though.
I tend to recommend their posts because they are written in modern lingo and in the last decade, so there's specifically modern analysis there. I recommend Marx, Engels, etc. frequently as well, but a lot of their writing is several times longer and as such several times less likely to be read by people I recommend them to, perhaps with the exception of Engels' The Principles of Communism, which is a great and to-the-point intro to Marxism.
Feel free to DM me if you have any questions!