They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.
Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government
In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other
This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system,
... show more
This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
This is not at all about being more "authoritarian" or "libertarian." It's a fundamentally different understanding of class and power dynamics, and both seek a liberated society. The political compass cannot depict this, even if the liberal view of anarchism and Marxism wants to point them as two extremes on a tidy graph with most people in the middle of them. What's important is that politics is not a bell curve, Marxism and anarchism are consistent ideologies with specific tendencies under them that fundamentally contradict. People don't just pick what they like from each (usually), because then they cease to be internally consistent.
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
Regulated and censoring speech - auth Absolute freedom of speech - lib Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle
Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It's a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled "authoritarian" whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.
Even an anarchist revolution is "authoritarian," as it involves violently taking control. In practice, "authoritarianism" is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It's used as a club against socialist states by those who've lost property to land reform or nationalization.
It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing
When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under "citizens," you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they've been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the "libertarian" quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a "libertarian-authoritarian" spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.
Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less "authoritarian" or "libertarian," in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn't something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.
This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?
Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do
Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens
You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”
Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem
Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don't have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn't extend to the economy.
Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don't have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.
This is a false-binary. It isn't a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.
I'm not dancing, I've said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.
You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must
... show more
You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1
As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian
I'm telling you that you're running into extreme absurdities. I have more personal freedom in a socialist society, where my needs are more assured, than I do in capitalist society, even if said capitalist society was more of a nightwatchman state. By making "authority" purely about how the state treats anyone, and removing all economics from the equation, you create absurd contradictions. That's why class analysis is important.
The political compass makes no sense. It's sole purpose is to affirm liberalism by pretending there's a spectrum of libertarian to authoritarian, when such terms are utterly meaningless when looked at without understanding class. What matters is who is the state serving, how, and why, not if the state is mean or if the state is nice.
You've said "authoritarianism" is about "restricting individual freedoms," and categorized me and existing socialist states as "authoritarian." These are contradictions, though, they both cannot be true.
I understand that you are generally categorizing socialist society as something on the left, and saying you can have a bigger or smaller state, etc. I am telling you that this isn't how society works in real life. The state and the mode of production are interconnected, and reinforce each other. They aren't sliders you select in a lab, you can't just have a bigger or smaller state like that.
I'm not a bot, no. You haven't responded to me saying class analysis is critical, you've brushed it aside entirely and continued to re-affirm the original statement.
I literally never did and I am done reading your page long responses that involve you not reading anything I wrote, making up an argument and then responding to that I have had more productive conversations with a homeless man on the bus
It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
These are your words. I do read what you write, as much as you insist that I'm not. I agree that this conversation isn't very productive, but I think it's more due to your refusal to actually engage with what I've been saying and instead just re-affirm the useless political compass as though it actually means anything.
Really don't like the way you casually look down on the homeless, too.
They'd be less homophobic/misogynistic, that's for sure. They still aren't substitutes for a point, though, considering you've made up strawmen and started lashing out at people for disagreeing with you.
Not really, i see tankies in this space constantly praise China and Russia for their ability to "control" their people.
Tankies come off as authoritarian lap dogs who claim to be communists or socialists but have lost sight of what society those beliefs are supposed to support.
If they don't want to be seen this way they should behave differently.
If I wanted to make a high engagement post I would post something like this. Are there any other controversial, not clearly defined words to ask about?
I honestly saw someone use the word, wondered what they actually meant by it, and came here to ask. TBF, I didn't know much about what "here" was, at the time.
Lemmy is developed by communists, and Reddit banned a bunch of leftist subreddits like r/chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, and r/TheDeprogram. As a consequence, a bunch of communists are on Lemmy by ratio compared to Reddit, though Lemmy.world is defederated and blocks 2/3rds of the major communist instances, so you can't actually see them. They usually are on Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net if you want to see the communist side of Lemmy.
Lemmy.ml is the dev's testing instance, so that's why a lot of communists are here but also why it's not defederated by Lemmy.world.
Here's Lemmy.world explaining why. Essentially, for having stances common to communists (opposing western hegemony is a big one they took issue with). Lemmy.world is run by your standard DNC-style liberals, they generally oppose Marxism and communism, and uphold the DNC as good. Some are also zionists.
Now, that's my perspective as a communist. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, my perspective is as someone who reads theory, does light org work, etc. I'm not a fan of the DNC, I support socialist states, etc. Others may give a different perspective, but it's also worth noting that there are entire drama communities dedicated to taking comments out of context, witch-hunting communists, etc and this is made even worse by defederation because it creates this "boogeyman" that .world can't actually see.
Hope that helps, honestly you can just scroll grad and hexbear yourself for a bit without making an account to see what's up.
No worries! A lot of people get emotionally invested in drama, which is why tons of the definitions you've been given for "tankie" are people that don't actually exist. It's like saying "communist but boogieman." This creates the response from communists defending ourselves from slander, which is why this became a mess. Kinda like if you went into a random room and asked people what "woke" meant.
Lemmy has few conservatives (outside of instances like sh.itjust.works), so the biggest ideological conflict is communist vs liberal, with anarchists kinda doing their own thing and aligning more or less with the former or the latter.
As I explained in my reply to you, I misrepresented nothing. Lemmy.world admins banned Hexbear because of ideological disagreements they deemed unacceptable before even federating. Hexbear never said they were going to "wage a propaganda war," they just suggested that if their users were to discuss politics in federated threads that they try to be more professional about it.
I'm not lying, though. You misrepresented the post, and I elaborated directly to you. They told users not to engage in rowdy behavior and instead insisted on professionalism.
Reading that thread, it's clearly not for "having stances". Very, very clearly it's about their intention to push anti-liberal propaganda and dismantle liberalism across the fediverse.
Yours is a clearly disingenuous reading, and I hope people here aren't just taking you at your word.
It's absolutely for having stances deemed unacceptable by the admin team. For the admin team, only liberal propaganda is allowable. Any left-critique of liberalism is deemed "extreme," and was pre-emptively silenced. The admins are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that it's unacceptable to push viewpoints systemically while cutting out anyone that goes against their own viewpoints.
If you're really gonna say deliberately connecting to an instance with the stated goal of dismantling and inserting a communist ideology via a propaganda war is tantamount to "just having a stance" then it should be clear to everyone what a bad actor you are.
Imagine if I publicaly stated that the goal of my instance was to build a userbase, infiltrate .ml, dismantle communist ideology, and spread liberal propaganda. Are you really gonna pretend you'd leap to my defense when Dessalines obviously banned/defederated me?
Hell, he loves to abuse rule 2 to silence "Liberals" constantly. Yet you don't seem to have anything to say about that...
Hexbear did not state that their goals were to wage a "propaganda war." They know that as a leftist instance, their users were going to obviously have ideological disagreements with the liberalism on other instances, and encouraged being more calm and bringing sources rather than just posting PPB or getting into shit-flinging fights.
Hexbear existed for years before federation. It's a leftist instance for leftists, it isn't the homebase of infiltrating other instances or any such nonsense. A good number of Hexbear users are against federation because they want to keep a protected space for marginalized users that other instances do not have the same level of care for.
As for banning right-wingers? I'm fine with it. I don't care for hateful views like zionism, ableism, misogyny, homophobia, imperialist apologia, etc to be respected as some holy right to "free speech." I don't think Lemmy.world is bad for having banned dissenting viewpoints, I think Lemmy.world is bad for banning leftists and upholding right-wing ideology as the only acceptable one. I'm
... show more
Hexbear did not state that their goals were to wage a "propaganda war." They know that as a leftist instance, their users were going to obviously have ideological disagreements with the liberalism on other instances, and encouraged being more calm and bringing sources rather than just posting PPB or getting into shit-flinging fights.
Hexbear existed for years before federation. It's a leftist instance for leftists, it isn't the homebase of infiltrating other instances or any such nonsense. A good number of Hexbear users are against federation because they want to keep a protected space for marginalized users that other instances do not have the same level of care for.
As for banning right-wingers? I'm fine with it. I don't care for hateful views like zionism, ableism, misogyny, homophobia, imperialist apologia, etc to be respected as some holy right to "free speech." I don't think Lemmy.world is bad for having banned dissenting viewpoints, I think Lemmy.world is bad for banning leftists and upholding right-wing ideology as the only acceptable one. I'm not some "free-speech absolutist."
I'm not a bad actor. I'm open and honest with my views, my stances, and my positions. No, I would not come to your defense if you were being an anti-communist or spreading apologia for imperialism, NATO, etc, or were talking about how good the DNC or capitalism are. I'm a communist, I say that proudly and openly, and I don't try to hide behind excuses for that.
A better world is possible, where we plan production and distribution to suit the needs of everyone, rather than relying on brutal systems of imperialism and plunder from the international working class. If you want to learn more about what I believe and why, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out if you wish.
Not sure why you would post the source and then lie about what it says:
“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 o
... show more
Not sure why you would post the source and then lie about what it says:
“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.”
“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.”
At least you're open about being a hypocrite though, when it comes to banning people for just "having stances"
If you read the actual post itself, on Hexbear, it is phrased in a manner that acknowledges what we all know: if leftists see right-wing nonsense, they will try to debunk it, and that it asks users to please not do so with PPB or whatnot but by being professional and bringing sources. There are no coordinated brigades.
I'm not hypocritical either, it's absolutely correct that Lemmy.world banned Hexbear because it's a group of vocal leftists and that's unacceptable to the right-wing admins. I don't care about free-speech absolutism, what I care about is what stances are allowed and what aren't. Liberalism should not be protected, leftist views should be. Or do you think racist speech should be protected? Nonsense, I'm sure we both can agree on that, the difference is that I think leftist views are correct and morally just, while right-wing views are not.
“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.”
“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.”
I mean, it's obvious why you're lying. I just didn't expect you to lean right into the whole "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" vibe.
For the first, it's saying exactly what I said, that it's encouraging users that do choose to engage to do so with professionalism.
For the latter, it isn't a statement of intent, but a description of what is actually going on, a struggle between liberalism and leftism. There are prominent brigaders and drama farmers on .world, sh.itjust.works, piefed.world, etc that engage in ideological propagandizing against leftists, just like there are leftists that do so against right-wingers. This isn't a command to Hexbear users to go out and disseminate spooky scary leftist ideology, but a description of what already exists.
So no, I'm not lying, you're either unintentionally misreading the post and my comments, or are deliberately smearing me.
For the first, it’s saying exactly what I said, that it’s encouraging users that do choose to engage to do so with professionalism.
Propaganda wars and professionalism are not mutually exclusive. Nice try.
For the latter, it isn’t a statement of intent, but a description of what is actually going on, a struggle between liberalism and leftism. There are prominent brigaders and drama farmers on .world, sh.itjust.works, piefed.world, etc that engage in ideological propagandizing against leftists, just like there are leftists that do so against right-wingers. This isn’t a command to Hexbear users to go out and disseminate spooky scary leftist ideology, but a description of what already exists.
You don't get dizzy from so much spinning?
I mean, by that logic, Lemmy World admins never specifically stated that they were defederating because of people holding viewpoints they don't like. You want to have it both ways so bad it's disgusting.
Maybe these tactics actually work in Communist spaces? That would explain a lot...
The Lemmy.world admins manufactured the idea of Hexbear users intentionally brigading lemmy.world threads before they even federated, choosing to pre-emptively defederate, and directly cited ideological differences as the reason. Lemmy.world does not care about "idelogical warfare" itself as bad, as there are constant drama farms and prominent users and comms on Lemmy.world that directly state their intent is to push anti-communist views, yet these users are protected, made moderators, etc. Logically, therefore, it's the views that matter, not the idea of "protecting against brigading."
If the Lemmy.world admins were honest, they would just outright state that they don't like communism. Hexbear is honest, and directly states they ban right-wingers. Lemmy.world tries to have their cake and eat it too.
The Lemmy.world admins manufactured the idea of Hexbear users intentionally brigading lemmy.world threads before they even federated, choosing to pre-emptively defederate, and directly cited ideological differences as the reason.
Quote it. Your evidence so far is "they're lying".
In addition to the reasoning I've already given, their intentional bolding of comments like these:
“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.”
This was a statement on the stances of Hexbear, not a call to action. The Lemmy.world admins highlighted it to show why ideologically this was unacceptable to them, plain and simple.
Hexbear admins: "We plan to federate with Lemmy World for the express purpose of dismantling their western propaganda. We intend to continue our war against Liberals in the fediverse while we're there. But no brigades. We totally promise.
Despite openly acknowledging that our typical behavior is to 'dunk on dirtbag libs', and to do hilarious trolling, we will try to engage using informed rhetoric and sources."
Lemmy World admins: "That sounds terrible. No thanks."
Cowbee: "Lemmy World admins secretly hate Communists. Look at what they bolded!"
Am I missing anything? I can source anything in there you think isn't true.
Accuses me of sealioning while giving cover to a blatant liar. Good stuff.
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.
This is quoting the anti-imperialist parts, not the part where they tell them not to brigade or other such things, and saying that those mean hexbear has no intention of respecting the rules!
And if they really had a problem with this, then people that did the same on their instance would not be as Cowbee has pointed out:
Lemmy.world does not care about “idelogical warfare” itself as bad, as there are constant drama farms and prominent users and comms on Lemmy.world that directly state their intent is to push anti-communist views, yet these users are protected, made moderators, etc. Logically, therefore, it’s the views that matter, not the idea of “protecting
... show more
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.
This is quoting the anti-imperialist parts, not the part where they tell them not to brigade or other such things, and saying that those mean hexbear has no intention of respecting the rules!
And if they really had a problem with this, then people that did the same on their instance would not be as Cowbee has pointed out:
Lemmy.world does not care about “idelogical warfare” itself as bad, as there are constant drama farms and prominent users and comms on Lemmy.world that directly state their intent is to push anti-communist views, yet these users are protected, made moderators, etc. Logically, therefore, it’s the views that matter, not the idea of “protecting against brigading.”
The problem is the beliefs and ideology (again why are they highlighting the anti-imperialist, i.e. communist, parts?) not the "pushing" part
They listed stances common to communists as an example of what to defederate from. Tell me, why would they bold it? As Edie said, you're just sealioning.
Why did they bold the line about the left wanting to dismantle the IMF, NATO, etc? It certainly wasn't because it was telling users to wage ideological war, it was to highlight unacceptable ideology.
They actually didn't bold it lol. But let's assume you meant "include".
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Why would Lemmy World admins want to sign up for that? And why do you keep pretending that they just wanted to federate and be chill?
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
They did bold it:
It isn't bolded in the original text:
Either you're lying, like you keep accusing everyone else, or you don't care enough about the truth to check. In both cases it's clear you're sealioning.
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Why would Lemmy World admins want to sign up for that? And why do you keep pretending that they just wanted to federate and be chill?
So this is really all you have under the surface? Latch on to a throwaway when you can't argue with the substance?
For the audience: Lemmy World didn't want to federate with an instance of loud and proud Leftist shitposters, despite them pinky-swearing to play nice while achieving their goal of dismantling western propaganda on the instance and continuing their war on Liberals in the fediverse.
Cowbee says this is because Lemmy World hates Communists, not just communities that are obsessed with their political ideology, shitpost and "dunk" all day, and feel a sense of duty to purge Lemmy World of its evil politics and replace them with their own.
For the audience, which thus far seems to be no more than 3 people all agreeing with me, you were caught lying and then pretended to my face that you couldn't see the irrefutable proof I gave, then dodged every question because you can't actually engage with the substance of the argument after slandering me and insulting me over and over again.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Again, the .world thread:
Hexbear thread:
Shows the bolding plain as day. You can even look at the .world thread in markdown and see the "**" on the outside, indicating the bolding. It's incredibly easy to admit you're wrong here.
Both "dismantle western propaganda" and "It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished" were bolded by the .world admins to emphasize it. Really don't know what you're doing here beyond sealioning.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
-Jean-Paul Sartre
Applies pretty well to you. You're aware of the absurdity of your replies, the game is the point for you.
You know what, you're so hungry for it, I'll concede this point. You were right, ~~it should have been "your" not "you're"~~ those were were the ones that were highlighted.
I'll put a little trophy right next to your username :)
You never had any points, and lied whenever I brought any up specifically to avoid engaging with mine. I brought up that they bolded the point about the left needing to demolish NATO, the IMF, etc. as a means to show that this is ideologically incompatible with Lemmy.world. You lied, even in face of photo evidence, to avoid answering my question on why they did that. It's dishonest, and is why there's no point in arguing with points you raise because you won't take any response seriously.
It’s dishonest, and is why there’s no point in arguing with points you raise because you won’t take any response seriously.
Cute grandstanding.
I've answered your question and invited you to respond to that answer several times now. But you've just continued to dodge. But sure, you're the pinnacle of serious, honest debate.
It’s dishonest, and is why there’s no point in arguing with points you raise because you won’t take any response seriously.
Cute grandstanding.
I've answered your question and invited you to respond to that answer several times now. But you've just continued to dodge. But sure, you're the pinnacle of serious, honest debate.
They actually didn't bold it lol. But let's assume you meant "include".
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Why would Lemmy World admins want to sign up for that? And why do you keep pretending that they just wanted to federate and be chill?
No, you directly lied in the face of evidence and claimed no bolding happened. You're fully aware of the absurdity of your replies, any treatment of your "points" as anything other than the trolling they've been would be fruitless.
No, you directly lied in the face of evidence and claimed no bolding happened
Wrong.
You’re fully aware of the absurdity of your replies, any treatment of your “points” as anything other than the trolling they’ve been would be fruitless.
Projection.
Open invitation to stop playing this little game and engage with my response.
I tried giving you an out on the bolding thing by restating it differently. I made the mistake of seeing "IMF" and "NATO" in Cowbees and locking on to the second bullet point where "IMF" and "NATO" also is, but upon closer inspection realized that it was in fact the third one. If you made a similar mistake you could just have said that.
"It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished" is bolded. That is the line Cowbee is referring to, "these organizations" are "organizations such as NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank" as written in the previous bullet point.
From what I've seen, it appears a very vocal minority of .world users cannot tolerate any criticism or viewpoints opposing capitalism/liberialism or NATO.
In the 1950s, McCarthyite propagandists were spinning tall-tales and mythmaking about the world's most effective system at rapidly improving living conditions and scientific development. 70ish years later, with the soviet archives (somewhat) opened up, we have much better evidence at just how awful the lies of the US Empire were, which was busy exporting genocide and terrorism worldwide in order to plunder and dominate the world.
There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out. From genocide against Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, coups in Chile against democratically elected presidents in favor of dictators like Pinochet, brutal trade embargoes against countries like Cuba that dared to implement a more human-focused system, the US Empire was and still remains the most brutal and evil empire in history. Thankfully, imperialism is crumbling and this evil country is nearing its end. Hopefully after it falls, a socialist country can take its place.
...no? You hold certain opinions and I wonder if those are maybe formed more from just life experience of education? I dont know, it hold some sort of relevant value i believe but it isnt that big a deal. I mean 20s 30s 40s 50s? I dont need an exact age anc im not going to judge you by it
Yes, I'm sure. Based on what we factually know, the US Empire was a brutal exporter of death and misery while it plundered the world. The soviets were responsible for the largest and most significant improvements in quality of life in history, and supporting liberation struggles world-wide. I'm aware that anti-communists exist, and that anti-communism is the status quo in the US Empire. I'm also aware that that's because of decades of propagandizing and the fact that the US Empire needs imperialism to function.
Im not surprised but its wild how you talk about some of this stuff. You talk literally like an enemy of America. If you could leave and have a decent standard of living in a different country, would you do it?
I have family here. I could absolutely have a higher standard of living if I moved to China, for example, but my family is here. I'd rather the US Empire become socialist than move myself, and more and more people agree with me.
You are on a platform made by communists, there are a bunch of us here. Mostly on instances Lemmy.world censors for you, like Lemmygrad.ml and Hexbear.net.
Im sorry but I have to harp on this statement again.
There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out.
I dont think your wrong that there is no confusion, if course America was the good side in the cold war. Russia literally almost started ww3 a few times, but saved by a few good men acting against orders if the russian empire.
Literally practically all of America would disagree with you? I think professors and scholars would disagree with you. I think historians and theologians would disagree with you.
Ahhh the reason you see no confusion is because all you hear is the propaganda from one side. Maybe try broadening your intake of information.
No, the USSR was consistently on the side of disarmament. The US Empire constantly refused disarmament, and was willing to first-strike the USSR, which the USSR never pushed for. The USSR was not an empire either, it did not function by international plunder.
If your point is that I only hear propaganda from one side, that side is the pro-US Empire side. There's no "communist propaganda" in schooling, work, media, etc. Everything I grew up in and work in is meant to reinforce that status quo.
If we are comparing the two globally, the USSR was a friend to the global south while the US Empire has friends in the global north, ie imperialist countries in Europe and a handful elsewhere.
There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out.
Is just flat out wrong.... there is a tremendous amount of confusion. I can't even get you to understand this one simple point. Ive said it multiple times.
I'm aware that the standard opinion in western countries is pro-imperialist and anti-communist. Among the actual hard data we have, it's irrefutable that socialist countries have been responsible for the greatest improvements in quality of life for the greatest number of people in the shortest timespan possible. It's also irrefutable that the USSR was de-escalationary the entire Cold War while the US Empire was for escalation, considered dropping over a dozen nukes on Korea, etc. These are documented and accessible facts.
You have no idea how old I am, either, you just wanted to add a condescending jab because I refused to dox myself.
Whatever... youre fully indoctrinated into your bit. Thats fine. But you can't even just focus on something simple. I have no idea how old you are physically, but I think I understand well how old you are mentally.
I'm not "indoctrinated," I disagree with you firmly on something and have done the research and reading into it to make me confident in that. You insult my intelligence for disagreeing with you, while you provide nothing affirming your own point. It's ridiculous.
Im great brother. You? Im glad your reading my posts, maybe some truth will seep into your thick skulls. Im sorry, I dont need to be rude... Just, be blessed sir.
I never encountered its usage outside of the fediverse but appears to mean someone who espouses communist things but also is a russia/china apologist politically. Appears to be derogetory.
I actually always wondered a bit about the line between fascism and monarchism. To the casual observer they might seem nearly identical, though I wonder if in historical materialist terms it's a reactionary attempt to backslide to feudalism rather than progress capitalism to socialism.
the term Tankie comes from members of the British Communist Party that continued to support the U.S.S.R. after they sent tanks to Communist Hungary. Supporting the authoritarian State in the name of leftism even when they aren't acting very communally. Now a days it pretty much refers to ultra-authoritarian leftists. After years I still am not sure if lemmygrad.ml is actually made up mostly of tankies, or if it's mostly normies pretending to be acting how tankies stereotypically act. You probably have seen it more on the 'verse because Lemmy was originally just one website lemmy.ml written by Marxist-Leninist who were banned from reddit. Even after adding ActivityPub support and federating across many instances the Lemmy community still, in general, has Marxists leanings. If there is one thing, we leftists love even more than talking about overthrowing capitalism, it's calling other leftists names and claiming their version of socialism is went the capitalists are still in charge.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, "coming from the provinces
... show more
The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, "coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways."
"But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing."
"Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements' ...." (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
"The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary."
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about "democracy" or "freedom" is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about "freedom" and "democracy," but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
As for Lemmygrad.ml , it's entirely serious, and their positions are in line with other Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. As for the USSR, the capitalists were deposed and the working class was in charge. I have no idea what you're referring to there, nor to "ultra-authoritarianism."
Ce site utilise des cookies. Ils sont uniquement utilisés à des fins de bon fonctionnement du site web, et ne sont pas utilisés à des fins publicitaires. Si vous poursuivez sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de ces cookies.
An Original Thought
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •BussyCat
in reply to An Original Thought • • •An Original Thought
in reply to BussyCat • • •BussyCat
in reply to An Original Thought • • •They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.
Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government
In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system,
... show moreThis is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
This is not at all about being more "authoritarian" or "libertarian." It's a fundamentally different understanding of class and power dynamics, and both seek a liberated society. The political compass cannot depict this, even if the liberal view of anarchism and Marxism wants to point them as two extremes on a tidy graph with most people in the middle of them. What's important is that politics is not a bell curve, Marxism and anarchism are consistent ideologies with specific tendencies under them that fundamentally contradict. People don't just pick what they like from each (usually), because then they cease to be internally consistent.
An Original Thought
in reply to BussyCat • • •Extra power in comparison to what? What is the normal amount of state power?
BussyCat
in reply to An Original Thought • • •That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
Regulated and censoring speech - auth
Absolute freedom of speech - lib
Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle
Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth
No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib
Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle
No country is full auth or full lib
An Original Thought
in reply to BussyCat • • •So, essentially, it's subjective?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It's a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled "authoritarian" whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.
Even an anarchist revolution is "authoritarian," as it involves violently taking control. In practice, "authoritarianism" is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It's used as a club against socialist states by those who've lost property to land reform or nationalization.
BussyCat
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under "citizens," you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they've been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the "libertarian" quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a "libertarian-authoritarian" spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.
Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less "authoritarian" or "libertarian," in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn't something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.
BussyCat
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?
Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do
Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens
You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”
Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don't have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn't extend to the economy.
Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don't have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.
This is a false-binary. It isn't a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.
I'm not dancing, I've said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.
BussyCat
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must
... show moreYou are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1
As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •I'm telling you that you're running into extreme absurdities. I have more personal freedom in a socialist society, where my needs are more assured, than I do in capitalist society, even if said capitalist society was more of a nightwatchman state. By making "authority" purely about how the state treats anyone, and removing all economics from the equation, you create absurd contradictions. That's why class analysis is important.
The political compass makes no sense. It's sole purpose is to affirm liberalism by pretending there's a spectrum of libertarian to authoritarian, when such terms are utterly meaningless when looked at without understanding class. What matters is who is the state serving, how, and why, not if the state is mean or if the state is nice.
BussyCat
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Dude are you a bot? For the 500th time I NEVER SAID YOU HAVE LESS FREEDOM IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY
That is a straw man you have made up and keep arguing against
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •You've said "authoritarianism" is about "restricting individual freedoms," and categorized me and existing socialist states as "authoritarian." These are contradictions, though, they both cannot be true.
I understand that you are generally categorizing socialist society as something on the left, and saying you can have a bigger or smaller state, etc. I am telling you that this isn't how society works in real life. The state and the mode of production are interconnected, and reinforce each other. They aren't sliders you select in a lab, you can't just have a bigger or smaller state like that.
I'm not a bot, no. You haven't responded to me saying class analysis is critical, you've brushed it aside entirely and continued to re-affirm the original statement.
BussyCat
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BussyCat • • •These are your words. I do read what you write, as much as you insist that I'm not. I agree that this conversation isn't very productive, but I think it's more due to your refusal to actually engage with what I've been saying and instead just re-affirm the useless political compass as though it actually means anything.
Really don't like the way you casually look down on the homeless, too.
VasovagalSyncope
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •A leftist who believes any means necessary is justified to create a state ran society.
Even if that society isn't fair, even if innocent people get hurt in the process, even if the society is a dictatorship.
1984
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to 1984 • • •Tankies love sucking dictator cock.
But they like Eastern dictators usually.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Lol what a pathetic way to whine at ideas you don't like hearing.
Does the metaphor of ass kisser make sense to you? Maybe bootlicker?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •You need to stop with the projection.
You just embarrass yourself
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •the_mighty_kracken
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •Not really, i see tankies in this space constantly praise China and Russia for their ability to "control" their people.
Tankies come off as authoritarian lap dogs who claim to be communists or socialists but have lost sight of what society those beliefs are supposed to support.
If they don't want to be seen this way they should behave differently.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I see them pretty often around the fediverse
Their profiles are usually from hexbear or ml
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •VasovagalSyncope
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to VasovagalSyncope • • •PearOfJudes
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •the_mighty_kracken
in reply to PearOfJudes • • •gray
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •the_mighty_kracken
in reply to gray • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •Lemmy is developed by communists, and Reddit banned a bunch of leftist subreddits like r/chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, and r/TheDeprogram. As a consequence, a bunch of communists are on Lemmy by ratio compared to Reddit, though Lemmy.world is defederated and blocks 2/3rds of the major communist instances, so you can't actually see them. They usually are on Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net if you want to see the communist side of Lemmy.
Lemmy.ml is the dev's testing instance, so that's why a lot of communists are here but also why it's not defederated by Lemmy.world.
the_mighty_kracken
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •Here's Lemmy.world explaining why. Essentially, for having stances common to communists (opposing western hegemony is a big one they took issue with). Lemmy.world is run by your standard DNC-style liberals, they generally oppose Marxism and communism, and uphold the DNC as good. Some are also zionists.
Now, that's my perspective as a communist. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, my perspective is as someone who reads theory, does light org work, etc. I'm not a fan of the DNC, I support socialist states, etc. Others may give a different perspective, but it's also worth noting that there are entire drama communities dedicated to taking comments out of context, witch-hunting communists, etc and this is made even worse by defederation because it creates this "boogeyman" that .world can't actually see.
Hope that helps, honestly you can just scroll grad and hexbear yourself for a bit without making an account to see what's up.
the_mighty_kracken
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •No worries! A lot of people get emotionally invested in drama, which is why tons of the definitions you've been given for "tankie" are people that don't actually exist. It's like saying "communist but boogieman." This creates the response from communists defending ourselves from slander, which is why this became a mess. Kinda like if you went into a random room and asked people what "woke" meant.
Lemmy has few conservatives (outside of instances like sh.itjust.works), so the biggest ideological conflict is communist vs liberal, with anarchists kinda doing their own thing and aligning more or less with the former or the latter.
null
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •Just be warned, Cowbee is very much misrepresenting things here.
I urge you to read the thread he linked, and not take his summary seriously.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Me: posts direct quotes about waging a propaganda war
You: They never said they were going to wage a propaganda war.
Why are you just straight up lying?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •"No u"
Buddy -- I quoted it. Stop lying.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Reading that thread, it's clearly not for "having stances". Very, very clearly it's about their intention to push anti-liberal propaganda and dismantle liberalism across the fediverse.
Yours is a clearly disingenuous reading, and I hope people here aren't just taking you at your word.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •If you're really gonna say deliberately connecting to an instance with the stated goal of dismantling and inserting a communist ideology via a propaganda war is tantamount to "just having a stance" then it should be clear to everyone what a bad actor you are.
Imagine if I publicaly stated that the goal of my instance was to build a userbase, infiltrate .ml, dismantle communist ideology, and spread liberal propaganda. Are you really gonna pretend you'd leap to my defense when Dessalines obviously banned/defederated me?
Hell, he loves to abuse rule 2 to silence "Liberals" constantly. Yet you don't seem to have anything to say about that...
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •Hexbear did not state that their goals were to wage a "propaganda war." They know that as a leftist instance, their users were going to obviously have ideological disagreements with the liberalism on other instances, and encouraged being more calm and bringing sources rather than just posting PPB or getting into shit-flinging fights.
Hexbear existed for years before federation. It's a leftist instance for leftists, it isn't the homebase of infiltrating other instances or any such nonsense. A good number of Hexbear users are against federation because they want to keep a protected space for marginalized users that other instances do not have the same level of care for.
As for banning right-wingers? I'm fine with it. I don't care for hateful views like zionism, ableism, misogyny, homophobia, imperialist apologia, etc to be respected as some holy right to "free speech." I don't think Lemmy.world is bad for having banned dissenting viewpoints, I think Lemmy.world is bad for banning leftists and upholding right-wing ideology as the only acceptable one. I'm
... show moreHexbear did not state that their goals were to wage a "propaganda war." They know that as a leftist instance, their users were going to obviously have ideological disagreements with the liberalism on other instances, and encouraged being more calm and bringing sources rather than just posting PPB or getting into shit-flinging fights.
Hexbear existed for years before federation. It's a leftist instance for leftists, it isn't the homebase of infiltrating other instances or any such nonsense. A good number of Hexbear users are against federation because they want to keep a protected space for marginalized users that other instances do not have the same level of care for.
As for banning right-wingers? I'm fine with it. I don't care for hateful views like zionism, ableism, misogyny, homophobia, imperialist apologia, etc to be respected as some holy right to "free speech." I don't think Lemmy.world is bad for having banned dissenting viewpoints, I think Lemmy.world is bad for banning leftists and upholding right-wing ideology as the only acceptable one. I'm not some "free-speech absolutist."
I'm not a bad actor. I'm open and honest with my views, my stances, and my positions. No, I would not come to your defense if you were being an anti-communist or spreading apologia for imperialism, NATO, etc, or were talking about how good the DNC or capitalism are. I'm a communist, I say that proudly and openly, and I don't try to hide behind excuses for that.
A better world is possible, where we plan production and distribution to suit the needs of everyone, rather than relying on brutal systems of imperialism and plunder from the international working class. If you want to learn more about what I believe and why, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out if you wish.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Not sure why you would post the source and then lie about what it says:
- “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 o
... show moreNot sure why you would post the source and then lie about what it says:
“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.”
At least you're open about being a hypocrite though, when it comes to banning people for just "having stances"
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •If you read the actual post itself, on Hexbear, it is phrased in a manner that acknowledges what we all know: if leftists see right-wing nonsense, they will try to debunk it, and that it asks users to please not do so with PPB or whatnot but by being professional and bringing sources. There are no coordinated brigades.
I'm not hypocritical either, it's absolutely correct that Lemmy.world banned Hexbear because it's a group of vocal leftists and that's unacceptable to the right-wing admins. I don't care about free-speech absolutism, what I care about is what stances are allowed and what aren't. Liberalism should not be protected, leftist views should be. Or do you think racist speech should be protected? Nonsense, I'm sure we both can agree on that, the difference is that I think leftist views are correct and morally just, while right-wing views are not.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I mean, it's obvious why you're lying. I just didn't expect you to lean right into the whole "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" vibe.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •For the first, it's saying exactly what I said, that it's encouraging users that do choose to engage to do so with professionalism.
For the latter, it isn't a statement of intent, but a description of what is actually going on, a struggle between liberalism and leftism. There are prominent brigaders and drama farmers on .world, sh.itjust.works, piefed.world, etc that engage in ideological propagandizing against leftists, just like there are leftists that do so against right-wingers. This isn't a command to Hexbear users to go out and disseminate spooky scary leftist ideology, but a description of what already exists.
So no, I'm not lying, you're either unintentionally misreading the post and my comments, or are deliberately smearing me.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Propaganda wars and professionalism are not mutually exclusive. Nice try.
You don't get dizzy from so much spinning?
I mean, by that logic, Lemmy World admins never specifically stated that they were defederating because of people holding viewpoints they don't like. You want to have it both ways so bad it's disgusting.
Maybe these tactics actually work in Communist spaces? That would explain a lot...
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •The Lemmy.world admins manufactured the idea of Hexbear users intentionally brigading lemmy.world threads before they even federated, choosing to pre-emptively defederate, and directly cited ideological differences as the reason. Lemmy.world does not care about "idelogical warfare" itself as bad, as there are constant drama farms and prominent users and comms on Lemmy.world that directly state their intent is to push anti-communist views, yet these users are protected, made moderators, etc. Logically, therefore, it's the views that matter, not the idea of "protecting against brigading."
If the Lemmy.world admins were honest, they would just outright state that they don't like communism. Hexbear is honest, and directly states they ban right-wingers. Lemmy.world tries to have their cake and eat it too.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Quote it. Your evidence so far is "they're lying".
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •In addition to the reasoning I've already given, their intentional bolding of comments like these:
This was a statement on the stances of Hexbear, not a call to action. The Lemmy.world admins highlighted it to show why ideologically this was unacceptable to them, plain and simple.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Again: I asked for you to quote them saying they were defederating because hexbear users have stances common to communists.
What you gave me was your interpretation of why they bolded some text.
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to ∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name] • • •Hexbear admins: "We plan to federate with Lemmy World for the express purpose of dismantling their western propaganda. We intend to continue our war against Liberals in the fediverse while we're there. But no brigades. We totally promise.
Despite openly acknowledging that our typical behavior is to 'dunk on dirtbag libs', and to do hilarious trolling, we will try to engage using informed rhetoric and sources."
Lemmy World admins: "That sounds terrible. No thanks."
Cowbee: "Lemmy World admins secretly hate Communists. Look at what they bolded!"
Am I missing anything? I can source anything in there you think isn't true.
Accuses me of sealioning while giving cover to a blatant liar. Good stuff.
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to null • • •This is quoting the anti-imperialist parts, not the part where they tell them not to brigade or other such things, and saying that those mean hexbear has no intention of respecting the rules!
And if they really had a problem with this, then people that did the same on their instance would not be as Cowbee has pointed out:
... show moreThis is quoting the anti-imperialist parts, not the part where they tell them not to brigade or other such things, and saying that those mean hexbear has no intention of respecting the rules!
And if they really had a problem with this, then people that did the same on their instance would not be as Cowbee has pointed out:
The problem is the beliefs and ideology (again why are they highlighting the anti-imperialist, i.e. communist, parts?) not the "pushing" part
null
in reply to ∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name] • • •But neither of you have sourced it. You just feel like it's true.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •That's probably true -- quite a few things in those quotes
This is the lie.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •Why did they bold the line about the left wanting to dismantle the IMF, NATO, etc? It certainly wasn't because it was telling users to wage ideological war, it was to highlight unacceptable ideology.
Stop sealioning.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •They actually didn't bold it lol. But let's assume you meant "include".
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Why would Lemmy World admins want to sign up for that? And why do you keep pretending that they just wanted to federate and be chill?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •They did bold it:
It isn't bolded in the original text:
Either you're lying, like you keep accusing everyone else, or you don't care enough about the truth to check. In both cases it's clear you're sealioning.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Literally nothing in that line is bolded. Maybe get your eyes checked?
Or I'm right, and you do lie about things you post for some reason.
I thought you might not know what that meant, but now I know you don't.
Notice you have nothing to say about the actual meat of what I said though. And we all know why that is.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Let's try this again:
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Why would Lemmy World admins want to sign up for that? And why do you keep pretending that they just wanted to federate and be chill?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •So this is really all you have under the surface? Latch on to a throwaway when you can't argue with the substance?
For the audience: Lemmy World didn't want to federate with an instance of loud and proud Leftist shitposters, despite them pinky-swearing to play nice while achieving their goal of dismantling western propaganda on the instance and continuing their war on Liberals in the fediverse.
Cowbee says this is because Lemmy World hates Communists, not just communities that are obsessed with their political ideology, shitpost and "dunk" all day, and feel a sense of duty to purge Lemmy World of its evil politics and replace them with their own.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I mean, I already told you, you're wrong about the bolding. I say you're lying, you say I'm lying, why keep debating it? It was a throwaway jab.
Unless of course that's literally the last and final straw you have to grasp at.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •Again, the .world thread:
Hexbear thread:
Shows the bolding plain as day. You can even look at the .world thread in markdown and see the "**" on the outside, indicating the bolding. It's incredibly easy to admit you're wrong here.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Sure does! And the bullet you mentioned about IMF, NATO, etc has no bolding. Even in the source!
Why this, the equivalent of me saying you made a typo, is the hill you want to die on is becoming clearer by the moment. :)
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •Both "dismantle western propaganda" and "It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished" were bolded by the .world admins to emphasize it. Really don't know what you're doing here beyond sealioning.
-Jean-Paul Sartre
Applies pretty well to you. You're aware of the absurdity of your replies, the game is the point for you.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •You know what, you're so hungry for it, I'll concede this point. You were right, ~~it should have been "your" not "you're"~~ those were were the ones that were highlighted.
I'll put a little trophy right next to your username :)
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Wrong.
Also wrong.
Wow, wrong again. And again. And again.
Wrong too.
Cute grandstanding.
I've answered your question and invited you to respond to that answer several times now. But you've just continued to dodge. But sure, you're the pinnacle of serious, honest debate.
... show moreWrong.
Also wrong.
Wow, wrong again. And again. And again.
Wrong too.
Cute grandstanding.
I've answered your question and invited you to respond to that answer several times now. But you've just continued to dodge. But sure, you're the pinnacle of serious, honest debate.
null
2025-10-18 20:05:40
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •No, you directly lied in the face of evidence and claimed no bolding happened. You're fully aware of the absurdity of your replies, any treatment of your "points" as anything other than the trolling they've been would be fruitless.
Not a single person has agreed with you here.
null
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Wrong.
Projection.
Open invitation to stop playing this little game and engage with my response.
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to null • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to null • • •∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to null • • •Dogyote
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Dont forget the past, lest youre doomed to repeat it.
In 1950s everyone learned the horrors of a communist system, and now 70ish years later, those with 1st hand experience are mostly dead.
I mean, yall confuse me. In your opinion, should we not have fought communism in the 50s?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •In the 1950s, McCarthyite propagandists were spinning tall-tales and mythmaking about the world's most effective system at rapidly improving living conditions and scientific development. 70ish years later, with the soviet archives (somewhat) opened up, we have much better evidence at just how awful the lies of the US Empire were, which was busy exporting genocide and terrorism worldwide in order to plunder and dominate the world.
There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out. From genocide against Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, coups in Chile against democratically elected presidents in favor of dictators like Pinochet, brutal trade embargoes against countries like Cuba that dared to implement a more human-focused system, the US Empire was and still remains the most brutal and evil empire in history. Thankfully, imperialism is crumbling and this evil country is nearing its end. Hopefully after it falls, a socialist country can take its place.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Im curious, how old are you? And im guessing you have been an American from birth? I'd appreciate it if you would indulge me... not trying to dox you
Edit: i am 41yo male east coast America
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •... you cant/won't reveal your approximate age?
No one cares... no one is going to look for you.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Its sentences like this that hurt your argument critically.
"There's no confusion here" ? You sure about that?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •I have family here. I could absolutely have a higher standard of living if I moved to China, for example, but my family is here. I'd rather the US Empire become socialist than move myself, and more and more people agree with me.
You are on a platform made by communists, there are a bunch of us here. Mostly on instances Lemmy.world censors for you, like Lemmygrad.ml and Hexbear.net.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Im sorry but I have to harp on this statement again.
I dont think your wrong that there is no confusion, if course America was the good side in the cold war. Russia literally almost started ww3 a few times, but saved by a few good men acting against orders if the russian empire.
Literally practically all of America would disagree with you? I think professors and scholars would disagree with you. I think historians and theologians would disagree with you.
Ahhh the reason you see no confusion is because all you hear is the propaganda from one side. Maybe try broadening your intake of information.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •No, the USSR was consistently on the side of disarmament. The US Empire constantly refused disarmament, and was willing to first-strike the USSR, which the USSR never pushed for. The USSR was not an empire either, it did not function by international plunder.
If your point is that I only hear propaganda from one side, that side is the pro-US Empire side. There's no "communist propaganda" in schooling, work, media, etc. Everything I grew up in and work in is meant to reinforce that status quo.
If we are comparing the two globally, the USSR was a friend to the global south while the US Empire has friends in the global north, ie imperialist countries in Europe and a handful elsewhere.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •My only point is that your statement that:
Is just flat out wrong.... there is a tremendous amount of confusion. I can't even get you to understand this one simple point. Ive said it multiple times.
Good night young man
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •I'm aware that the standard opinion in western countries is pro-imperialist and anti-communist. Among the actual hard data we have, it's irrefutable that socialist countries have been responsible for the greatest improvements in quality of life for the greatest number of people in the shortest timespan possible. It's also irrefutable that the USSR was de-escalationary the entire Cold War while the US Empire was for escalation, considered dropping over a dozen nukes on Korea, etc. These are documented and accessible facts.
You have no idea how old I am, either, you just wanted to add a condescending jab because I refused to dox myself.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Sherad
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Sherad • • •Sherad
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •chloroken
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Hey champ, how are you?
You're brainwashed and ignorant and politically illiterate. Reading your posts is like hearing the dying gasps of a generation of delusion.
Getitupinyerstuffin'
in reply to chloroken • • •chloroken
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •Horse {they/them}
in reply to Getitupinyerstuffin' • • •of course you are buddy, you're 12
HubertManne
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •the_mighty_kracken
in reply to HubertManne • • •redhilsha
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • • •मुक्त
in reply to redhilsha • • •An Original Thought
in reply to मुक्त • • •मुक्त
in reply to An Original Thought • • •Wrestling Fan
in reply to मुक्त • •Asklemmy reshared this.
मुक्त
in reply to Wrestling Fan • • •Wrestling Fan
in reply to the_mighty_kracken • •Asklemmy reshared this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Wrestling Fan • • •The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
... show moreThe term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about "democracy" or "freedom" is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about "freedom" and "democracy," but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
As for Lemmygrad.ml , it's entirely serious, and their positions are in line with other Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. As for the USSR, the capitalists were deposed and the working class was in charge. I have no idea what you're referring to there, nor to "ultra-authoritarianism."