Update:
The comments from this post will not be removed as to preserve the discussion around the announcement. Any continued discussions outside of this thread that violate server rules will be removed. We feel that everyone that has an opinion, and wanted to vent, has been heard.

————-

Original post:
Yesterday, we received information about the planned federation by Hexbear. The announcement thread can be found here: https://www.hexbear.net/post/280770. After reviewing the thread and the comments, it became evident that allowing Hexbear to federate would violate our rules.

Our code of conduct and server rules can be found here.

The announcement included several concerning statements, as highlighted below:

  • “Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda. Posting the western atrocity propaganda and pig poop balls is hilarious but will pretty quickly get you banned and if enough of us do it defederated.”
  • “The West’s role in the world, through organizations such as NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - among many others - are deeply harmful to the billions of people living both inside and outside of their imperial core.”
  • “These organizations constitute the modern imperial order, with the United States at its heart - we are not fooled by the term “rules-based international order.” It is in the Left’s interest for these organizations to be demolished. When and how this will occur, and what precisely comes after, is the cause of great debate and discussion on this site, but it is necessary for a better world.”

The rhetoric and goal of Hexbar are clear based on their announcement: to “dismantle western propaganda” and "demolish organizations such as NATO” shows that Hexbar has no intention of "respecting the rules of the community instance in which they are posting/commenting.” It’s to push their beliefs and ideology.

In addition, several comments from a Hexbear admin, demonstrate that instance rules will not be respected.

Here are some examples:

“I can assure you there will be no lemmygrad brigades, that energy would be better funneled into the current war against liberalism on the wider fediverse.”

“All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.”

Overall community comments:

To clarify, for those who have inquired about why Hexbear versus Lemmygrad, it should be noted that we are currently exploring the possibility of defederating from Lemmygrad as well based on similar comments Hexbear has made.

Defederation should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected.

We made the decision to preemptively defederate from Hexbear for these reasons. While we understand that not everyone may agree with our decision, we believe it is important to prioritize the best interests of our community.

  • _jonatan_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just want to say that most communists/socialists are not in favor of china or other authoritarian “communist” regimes (any country where factories need suicide nets can hardly be called communist, even if you disregard all the other ways they fail at communist ideals).

    Unfortunately tankies are incredibly loud and often well-organized. They are just authoritarian dickriders, no better than the imperialist they claim to oppose.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      most communists/socialists

      are in China and the rest of the global south.

      What passes for socialism/the ‘left’ in the US/west is ‘progressive’ liberalism. I encourage you to read the classic and modern texts of liberalism with a critical eye. Then read Marx.

      Otherwise, you could start with Zac Cope (critical of China/Marxism-Leninism).

    • Tabitha@fediverse.boo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communists practice critical support. To quote Marx, “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” We do not believe China’s economy is socialist. But the CPC has lifted more people out of poverty than any government in history, at the same time that living standards for the Western working class have collapsed. In so far as they support the working class, we critically support the CPC.
      What you call ‘Tankies’, is a word that has been used to associate Marxist-Leninist’s with all kinds of bizarre micro-ideologies. But Marxism-Leninism is the primary form of communism in most countries in the world, and in that sense most communists will practice critical support towards AES states.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly this. Even the CPC doesn’t claim to have achieved socialism yet. They don’t plan to achieve it till ~2050 (although seeing how they smash all other targets, they might get there a bit sooner).

      • _jonatan_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can agree that getting people out of poverty is cool. But tankies generally don’t practice “critical support” of CPC. They practice unwavering boot-deepthroating. I have never heard anyone from that side of the left say (or acknowledge) anything negative about CPC. Any critiques put up is usually dismissed as “CIA propaganda”.

        • Tabitha@fediverse.boo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are a wide range of views towards China among communist and amongst ourselves we argue about them a lot. The thing is, a lot of the criticisms of China that the average Westerner has, are naturally informed by the Western media. This is understandable, but it leads to criticisms that often aren’t based in reality. I don’t know how many times I’ve had someone tell me, for example, that China is a warmongering, imperialist state, when in reality they haven’t been in a war for more than half a century. So this creates the idea among non-communists that we are aligned and have a unified, uncritical front in regard to China, whereas actually nothing could be further from the truth.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Echoing/adding to Tabitha’s point, it gets tedious very quickly to argue with liberals about China because they’re rarely well informed.

          Marxism stands for the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’ and the ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. China does not get a free pass. But it’s not very productive to argue with someone who isn’t concerned with material reality in China because they’ve been led to believe falsehoods spread by liberals.

          One of the reasons you don’t see the critical side to the ‘tankie’ analysis of China is because you might never have got to the point where you’re talking about China (as opposed to what westerners think about China).

          If the ‘tankie’ has to debunk a blatant lie for the millionth time, a constructive conversation cannot follow unless the liberal is willing to move past that point. The liberal must first accept that they might be wrong and then continue the discussion beyond where it usually ends—which is usually where the liberal accuses the ‘tankie’ of arguing in bad faith for daring to investigate an issue beyond the headline.

          (Again, to caveat this, by liberal, I mean pro-capitalists, not the ‘progressive’ liberals of the US.)

    • Anemia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, but I’m not so sure that it’s the case in the more extreme communities, otherwise those views would be downvoted/grouppressured out to a larger extent.

    • Dekudibusei@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, this sound like a Muslim decrying that ISIS doesn’t consist of “actual” Muslims. If they themselves identify as Muslims, or communists in this case, that’s what counts for me. You can’t wipe your driveway clean of that stain just by saying “meh, they’re not really communist”.

      • _jonatan_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do agree that’s it’s a bit of a “no true scotsman” fallacy, but on the other hand many states call them themselves “democratic” without being so. At some point you have to look at the actual ideology and see if the state lives up to it. And nearly all self-proclaimed communist states simply do not. But it doesn’t really matter if they are “real” communists or not - they are not what a lot of communists/socialist believe in and support.