Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.

submitted by Samuel Block

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.

Back to main discussion

JubilantJaguar

When I say right, I am using the typical definition, supportive of Capitalism. Social Democrats, Liberals, American Libertarians, fascists, and all their myriad forms.

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.

Avatar poVoq

Social democrats do not code as “right” anywhere in the world.

Except in Portugal, where the conservative party calls themselves Social Democrats.

JubilantJaguar

True but that is a proper name, not the generic definition. Russia's Liberal Democrats are ultranationalists.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

Social democrats do not code as "right" anywhere in the world.

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.

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)

Liberalism is the ideological framework for Capitalism, this is, again, supportive of Capitalism and against Socialism.

JubilantJaguar

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.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

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.

JubilantJaguar

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.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him] , edited

My biggest issue is with these two statements:

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.

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:*

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

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 essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

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."

JubilantJaguar

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.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him] , edited

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 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.

There are much better ideas for how to replace capitalism, though - spoiler - none of them involve a bloody revolution

I have yet to see anything succeed in replacing Capitalism without a revolution, so I'm curious what you are referring to.

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

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.

JubilantJaguar

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?

JubilantJaguar

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?

Avatar OpenStars

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.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

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.

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.

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.

JubilantJaguar

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.

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

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.

[deleted]

Are you not using this alt account to act as a missionary among the non believers?

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

This is my main account, who do you think I am an alt of?

[deleted]

The hexbear cowbee. But let me rephrase. Are you not engaging in world communities to act as a missionary among the non believers?

Avatar Cowbee [he/him]

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.

[deleted] , edited

as they are more prone to censorship

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:

I've spoken with a few users, carefully pointing out how by being anti-Marxist but not also being anti-liberal, and further having no links to theory of any sort beyond aesthetic choices, opens them up to opportunism. They seemed to vaguely accept it, hope it can get through to them.

I am trying to convince individual users when the opportunity arises.

You're doing great! Also with your "reasonable nice guy" facade!

Avatar Cowbee [he/him] , edited

More prone than who? ml?

Yep, if you're a Marxist, you risk being censored on .world

You're doing great! Also with your "reasonable nice guy" facade!

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?

Avatar PugJesus

"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."