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.
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.
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.
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?
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.