Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I really don't think they are a left-unity instance considering that they get very upset and unpleasant to talk to if you don't support authoritarianism or their alternative "facts."
Like I'm cool with all sorts of different leftist viewpoints and I think it's necessary that we support each other, but I draw the line at authoritarianism and rewriting history.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here, you're being very vague. I'm a Marxist, I enjoy my time there, I don't really think I can say I share your same views on it.
When the instance I'm on was still federated with hexbear I did go and check them out to see what they had to say and with my own two eyes I saw people there denying the tiananmen square massacre and claiming that North Korea is a free and prosperous nation. Not to mention that when visiting other instances, such as the one I'm on, many would be extremely rude, which is why they got defederated.
Hexbear's stance, and most Marxists in general, on Tian'anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC's official stance on what it calls the "June 4th incident". This is a rejection of the commonly reported story of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat's cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.
I reiterate, Hexbear's stance isn't that the massacre didn't happen, but that Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don't frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan's dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian'anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:
As for the DPRK, I'd have to see what you mean as an example. The common consensus is that the DPRK has a well-documented "defector storytelling industry" where defectors are paid for outlandish stories, and due to their unverifiability gets passed on as truth. A good documentary on this subject is Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul. Therefore, really, very little can be trusted on the subject. Brutal executions being reported such as one official being eaten to death by 120 dogs end up being reported uncritically, despite said official turning up alive later and the story originating from a Chinese satirical column, akin to the Onion.
This is where the joke of "Juche Necromancy" comes from, because supposedly executed officials regularly turn up alive.
Anarchists are explicitly welcome, so authoritarianism is definitely not a requirement. And what "alternative facts"?
Things like the denial of the tiananmen square massacre or claiming that North Korea is a free and prosperous nation, both of which I have seen with my own two eyes on hexbear.
While I am not an anarchist, generally I am cool with them. Who I am not cool with are Marxist-Leninists, which are authoritarian.
From the wikipedia article on Marxist-Leninists:
The people of the soviet union, at least as far as Pat Sloan experienced in ~1937, had the most limited choice: any person
Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy: Chapter XIII
Several things in there I dislike:
Raising hands does not seem like an accurate way vote. Peasants who employed labor couldn't vote. People could vote even if they weren't citizens. No mention of being able to vote for non-communists. There are trade-unions and other candidates but it doesn't mention their political alignment
To defend non-citizens voting, the Soviets valued labor over nationalism and anyone could vote despite not being citizens if they worked there. Kinda like if the US allowed immigrants to vote who weren't yet citizens.
Trade Unions were often independent as well. Really, the book itself is fascinating.
I support immigration but allowing non-citizens to vote seems like an easy way for foreign governments to swing elections in their favor.
Yes, I get that the trade unions were their own thing but that doesn't mean they can't also be communist.
Again, the Soviets valued labor and the working class over all else. Chalk that up to them being naiive or whatnot, but that was the reasoning. Foreign governments were anti-Communist, not supporting the Socialist system, so if anything that points towards legitimacy.
As for the Trade Unions, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying you want them to not be allowed to be Communist? Genuinely confused here, I don't know what your point is.
So I'm cool with socialism, and I consider myself to be socialist, but I don't think communism and socialism are the same thing. I believe that communist countries have a communist system, not a socialist system. If they did have a socialist system, then they'd be socialists, not communists.
And what I'm saying about the trade unions is that I'm not against the existence of communist trade unions but I'd like there to be trade unions of other political ideologies as well, such as socialist ones, anarchist ones, etc.
I'd like to exist in a world where borders don't matter and there aren't any foreign governments trying to sabotage each other, but that's not the state of reality today and idk if it will ever be, but I base my position on non-citizens being unable to vote based on the reality of what the world is today and if the world changes, then I'll probably change my position as well, but I don't see change like that happening in my lifetime.
Okay, I'm going to clarify some things here. For reference, I am a Marxist, particularly a Marxist-Leninist. I used to consder myself more of an Anarchist, but reading more Marxist theory and history books generally led me towards Marxism-Leninism. As such, the explanations I am going to give in a second are from that perspective, a Marxist that at one point considered themselves to be an Anarchist.
All Communists are, first and foremost, Socialists. Socialism is categorized by an economic system where public ownership and planning is primary and thus dominant over markets. Communism refers to a post-Socialist economic system where all property has been collectivized in a world Socialist republic, the famous "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society." When I reference the ideology of AES states, I reference Marxism or Communism or a specific strain of Marxism, but when I reference the economic model of an AES state, it changes.
For example, the PRC is Marxist-Leninist, but practices "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," which appears as a form of a "Socialist Market Economy." This economic model looks different from, say, Cuba, even though both are guided by Marxism-Leninism and working towards Communism.
There are other forms of Socialism, however in the grand historical and theoretical context the overwhelming majority fall into the broad categories of Marxism and Anarchism.
Does this all make sense so far? If you're interested, I wrote an introductory Marxist reading list, the first section in particular is short and very helpful for just being familiar with general terminology and goals.
I've read a bit about Marxism-Leninism before because I like to be knowledgeable about different people's viewpoints and ideologies. I agree that the workers should have ownership of what they produce and that products should be produced based on need and not profits. I also believe that we should flatten society's hierarchical structure as much as possible since positions of power lead to abuse, however I don't think it's feasible to fully flatten it, because criminals still exist and I can't think of a way prosecution would work without hierarchy. However, I do not believe that all property should be collectively owned and that is a turn off for me. Now that's not the only thing that turns me off, but it is one of many.
I understand that we share several viewpoints but we also have several views we disagree on and I think that's okay. I am extremely dubious of Marxism-Leninism because I have seen Marxist-Leninists support authoritarianism and deny genocide, but as long as you don't, I'm chill. People are allowed to have their own opinions and as long as they aren't harming anyone, again I'm chill with their existence. Generally I don't talk about this, but I am Pagan, and with that comes the belief of pluralism which I apply not only to religious beliefs but also politics as well.
When you say you don't think all property should be collectively owned, what about it specifically turns you away from that? What does that look like in your eyes? I think more than anything you sound like a Marxist-Leninist that just hasn't read much theory, because other than that sticking point you seem to be saying the same things Marxist-Leninists say.
Just food for thought, my reading list is there if you want it or not.
I think people should be able to have personal property. They should own their house and their yard. If they have a cabin up north, vacation home down south, or acres of wilderness that they hunt on, they should be able to own that too. I understand that the housing market is shit rn but I think that's caused by flippers and the wealthy treating houses like stocks, and not by your neighbor Bob having a cabin or whatever.
Really I prefer the label of being a left leaning pluralist instead since it makes it clear that I am tolerant of varying ideologies but intolerant of extremism and political violence.
I asked because Marxists make a distinction between personal and public property, you can own things you use. Probably not owning acres of land, but housing is something you can own.
Is there something you especially believe should be ownable by individuals that you think Marxists want to collectivize?
I think Lumelore is starting of at anti-communism, and working her way from there. It leads to some weird stuff like this.
Generally yes, though she doesn't seem to be one of the endlessly bad-faith types, just a bit stuck with Red Scare notions.
?????
??????
It says that anyone could propose a candidate, and that the person elected in that specific election wasn't part of the [Communist] Party, making it somewhat likely they weren't a communist.
But a better question, is why is it important that they can vote for non-communists? What else should they vote for? Fascists? Liberals that wish to destroy the Soviet system and institute capitalism, thereby making the lives of the vast majority of people worse? Chapter XVII goes over this to some extent, but I of course do recommend reading the entire book.