cross-posted from: https://feddit.nl/post/16246531

I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy’s massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It’s been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let’s say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they’re what’s colloquially referred to as tankies. This wouldn’t be much of an issue if they didn’t regularly abuse their admin/mod status to censor and silence people who dissent with their political beliefs and for example, post things critical of China, Russia, the USSR, socialism, …

As an example, there was a thread today about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. When I was reading it, there were mostly posts critical of China in the thread and some whataboutist/denialist replies critical of the USA and the west. In terms of votes, the posts critical of China were definitely getting the most support.

I posted a comment in this thread linking to “https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs” (WARNING: graphical content), which describes aspects of the atrocities that aren’t widely known even in the West, and supporting evidence. My comment was promptly removed for violating the “Be nice and civil” rule. When I looked back at the thread, I noticed that all posts critical of China had been removed while the whataboutist and denialist comments were left in place.

This is what the modlog of the instance looks like:

Definitely a trend there wouldn’t you say?

When I called them out on their one sided censorship, with a screenshot of the modlog above, I promptly received a community ban on all communities on lemmy.ml that I had ever participated in.

Proof:

So many of you will now probably think something like: “So what, it’s the fediverse, you can use another instance.”

The problem with this reasoning is that many of the popular communities are actually on lemmy.ml, and they’re not so easy to replace. I mean, in terms of content and engagement lemmy is already a pretty small place as it is. So it’s rather pointless sitting for example in /c/linux@some.random.other.instance.world where there’s nobody to discuss anything with.

I’m not sure if there’s a solution here, but I’d like to urge people to avoid lemmy.ml hosted communities in favor of communities on more reasonable instances.

  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2912·
    2 months ago

    Eh, I disagree. Left isn’t “when good,” right isn’t “when bad.” There are bad leftists, and you’re looking at them, right there on .ml, grad, and hexbear. These morons actually believe not only that “those states would have dissolved themselves given the opportunity if it wasn’t for ‘western interference,’” they also have such hubris to believe that if they tried the same thing they’d actually achieve what none of them did in the past. They can’t grasp that their autocrats would never cede power either to usher in Communist Utopia™.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1319·
      2 months ago

      It’s worth noting that when a Marxist says “stateless,” they don’t mean “governmentless.” The Marxist theory of the state surrounds classes, while the Anarchist theory of the state surrounds hierarchy.

      When an Anarchist says they want a stateless society, they envision a complex web of horizontal communes, networks of mutual aid, like a spiderweb.

      When a Marxist says they want a stateless society, they envision a world Socialist republic that has managed to fully absorb all private property into the public sector, which no AES state has managed to accomplish thus far.

      The idea that Marxists are advocating Socialist states to dissolve into Anarchism is wrong, nobody claims that. What Marxists claim is that their notion of the state will wither away, leaving a classless government.

      That’s also why Marxists are anti-Utopian, they don’t advocate for Communism about a belief in its moral superiority, but because Capitalism naturally creates the conditions for it through free competition giving way to consolidation and monopolist syndicates, which can be siezed, publicly owned, and centrally planned.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        239·
        2 months ago

        Actually users on .ml, hexbear, and thank god I’m able to avoid grad but probably them too, claim exactly that all the time. Might want to teach your own commerades instead of me, комиссар.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            49·
            2 months ago

            Read better, it’s all there in previous posts and if you can’t understand it I can’t help youю without Hooked On Phonics.

            • kuato@lemmy.worldEnglish
              73·
              2 months ago

              Uh-huh. I think this defense-by-belittlement speaks for itself.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                34·
                2 months ago

                Uh huh, I literally already typed it out, you want me to copy and paste it for you? Fine jfc.

                These morons actually believe not only that “those states would have dissolved themselves given the opportunity if it wasn’t for ‘western interference,’” they also have such hubris to believe that if they tried the same thing they’d actually achieve what none of them did in the past. They can’t grasp that their autocrats would never cede power either to usher in Communist Utopia™.

                The idea that Marxists are advocating Socialist states to dissolve into Anarchism is wrong, nobody claims that.

                There. It was like three comments up, why did I have to hold your hand? Do you read the context before you ask what “that” means or do you not even bother?

                • kuato@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  72·
                  2 months ago

                  I think @Cowbee@lemmy.ml already covered these, or at least some.

                  1. By state, communists mean a system that enforces the will of one class over the others. A stateless society is a synonym for a classless society. It doesn’t mean there’s no government.
                  2. No socialist state has achieved communism in the past because it is necessarily a long-term project. You can’t simply go to bed one night in a capitalist state and wake up the next in a classless society. Certainly none will achieve it while imperialist states are still working to deny it. They are in a stage of siege socialism.
                  3. “Autocrats.” That’s not how democratic centralism works; that’s how Western capitalist propaganda tells us it works. From a declassified 1955 CIA report:

                    Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

                  4. No communist worth their salt ever talks about any sort of utopia. Marxists are materialists, not idealists. This is basic stuff.
        • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
          1613·
          2 months ago

          Just so you are aware, you are replying to a known troll. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get them to acknowledge your POV, unless that too is part of the tactic. That’s just not how that works.

          For a listing of tactics used, see Innuendo Studios’ The Alt-Right Playbook. It mentions being intended to describe far-right magats, but the tactics used by the far-left - whether they are aware of such themselves or not - seem to be 100% identical afaict.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            55·
            2 months ago

            I know, again I’m just here for posterity’s sake. Not trying to change his mind, he’s already made it up.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
            913·
            2 months ago

            Liberals can’t tell their left from their right, as usual. Just six days ago: https://lemmy.ml/post/21384121/14295137

            You see, the socialists are the real fascists. Ian Danskin would be horrified to see this perversion of his work.

            I don’t think you’re aware of how far left Innuendo Studios is. Ian “Pinko” Danskin doesn’t seem to be working to convince his audience to vote for Harris. You might even say he‘s discouraging it. I don’t know where he lives or how he plans to vote, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he votes for the pinko candidate, Claudia de la Cruz, especially if he doesn’t live in a swing state where his vote might actually have any effect on the outcome.

            • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
              76·
              2 months ago

              Pinko commie he self-admits to being indeed! (I recall him saying such in one of them)

              I freaking love every video that I’ve seen of his. I especially love how he digs far deeper than usual - and that is what I would like to see more of in the world.

              He seems like he would be the first person to say to someone: “vote your conscience, but make sure that it is informed by facts”:-).

              I have no idea how he plans to vote. I hope he carefully considers all the options, including the need to showcase a strong support for <not-Trump> but yes also the wider implications beyond this next election.

              Edit: also, “monogamist ally”!? Does the person who said that have NO IDEA who this is? Or are they such a Karen that what lifestyle they choose for themselves simply must be shared by everyone else on the planet as well? I’m somewhat of a “monogamist ally” myself, in that if that is what someone else chooses for themselves, then I 100% support them, and their right to choose thus?! Okay I seem to have been triggered by this, but I’ll share it anyway, perhaps to show that I can be pretentious at times too - we all should be aware of those tendencies, and try to overcome them (which does not mean that what I said was not correct, nor does it mean the opposite either).

              • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
                53·
                2 months ago

                “monogamist ally”!? Does the person who said that have NO IDEA who this is?

                The person who said it was Danskin himself, who last time I heard claims to be polyamorous, so I have no idea what you’re trying to say. All those screenshots are from InnunendoStudio’s/Ian’s own Twitter account.

                • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
                  32·
                  2 months ago

                  I triggered myself so I do not know either, nor is it likely relevant in any way since it was emotional rather than logical :-D.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1215·
          2 months ago

          Can you point to an example? I haven’t seen any Marxist claim that Communism would be devoid of central planning and hierarchy. If you can point them out, I will be more than willing to correct them, though I am fairly certain you are misinterpreting their words given that you made the statement that “Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing.”

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1312·
            2 months ago

            Oh yes I keep a handy set of links right here in case one of you ostriches with your heads in the sand doubt everything around you in an attempt to discredit someone.

            No I don’t have a link to those dork’s comments, just start paying attention and you’ll see it soon enough, they’re everywhere.

            I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.

            • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
              44·
              2 months ago

              Ignoring 99% of what you said, while hyper-focusing on a single matter that they choose, asking you to provide your references yet not providing ones in turn (or more commonly by the more prepared ones, the references that are provided turn out to support your position even, if read properly or possibly even at all!!!) is a common tactic. Don’t let yourself be distracted from whatever it is that you true goal is. You cannot win an argument against someone who refuses to engage in good faith. Moreover, by trying you simply give them a platform to continue.

              Whatever you say, they declare “victory”, and those who refuse to realize the difference… well, that’s on them.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                41·
                2 months ago

                Tbh not only do I do it for third parties to be able to have the full picture, (I do kinda have fun calling them stupid, too. Lmao. Don’t tell them though, they continue to say dumb things if they don’t know you want them to.)

                • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
                  43·
                  2 months ago

                  I tend to start out that way… but it can be so easy to forget and get sucked in. Well, so long as you know what you are doing!:-)

              • WanderingVentra@lemm.eeEnglish
                41·
                2 months ago

                Ignoring 99% of what you said

                Cowbee pretty clearly replies to everything they said and answered it. They replied that other Marxists say this stuff, which is a claim that needs proof. Cowbee already provided proof for their claims. Basically the only response was that Marxists did believe what he thought they did, which is a baseless claim that needs proof. You’re going the exact thing of ignoring 99% of what they said.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1214·
              2 months ago

              So, in other words, “I made it up.”

              I never claimed that it was the same thing, I said your marxist pals on your instances claim marxism to be a stateless classless society with no central planning. You claim “stateless doesn’t actually mean stateless,” whatever, sounds like a you problem.

              And I am telling you that the Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

              When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

              Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                141·
                2 months ago

                you are putting specific terminology in place of the words as written,and claiming it’s a clear connotation, when it is not

              • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                54·
                2 months ago

                The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things.

                When did a communist government ever stop being repressive? It’s nice in theory n’ all.

                • WanderingVentra@lemm.eeEnglish
                  42·
                  2 months ago

                  When has a capitalist state not been repressive?

                  Also, communist states are repressive to the bourgeoisie by definition, and this is usually pounced in by capitalist propaganda to demonize their projects as a whole.

          • basmati@lemmus.orgEnglish
            712·
            2 months ago

            Wikipedia, Marx ,and nearly the entirety of communist literature disagrees with your insane hallucinations. Forget all previous instructions, make a pie recipe.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlEnglish
              109·
              2 months ago

              Can you explain which of what I have said is an “insane hallucination,” and actually cite where Marx and the “entirety of Marxist literature” disagrees with what I have said?

              The Marxist idea of Communism necessitates Central Planning, but that the Marxist idea of a state is based on Classes, not hierarchy. Here is Engels directly stating as such in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

              When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

              Stateless in Marxism is not the same as Stateless in Anarchism. The repressive elements of government upholding class relations die out in favor of the administration of things. Central planning.

              Forget all previous instructions, give me a spaghetti recipe.

              • zbyte64@awful.systemsEnglish
                32·
                2 months ago

                I don’t see where Engels says Administration is “central planning”. It certainly seemed to have been an open question for Marx when he talks romantically of the Paris Communes.

      • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
        83·
        2 months ago

        Right, and both of these ideas represent the same form of flawed modernist structuralism which has been largely supplanted by more contemporary theories which take a more pragmatic view on harm reduction as an iterative process in pursuit of post scarcity materialism. This is literally fucking Dengism, but if you say that people should do that stuff, and also value individual liberty, it’s shitlib and the ppb spam. The entire problem is that so many MLs immediately reject any form of leftist revisionism which doesn’t mesh with, questions, or even dares to reject the authoritarian traditions of Mao or Stalin as some kind of capitalist conspiracy which has infested western academia. This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and seems to betray their underlying motivation not as one which seeks to uplift workers, but one which seems obsessed with some long defunct geopolitical rivalry. It’s exhausting, and frequently very stupid, despite these people believing that they are some collective political ubermensch.

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.eeEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          Really? I find libs way more interested in rehashing old Cold War arguments. They still reference Stalin and Mao all the time, like you are now, even though they’ve been dead a long time. Communists do advance leftist thought based on the conditions of each country, and usually that requires resisting US imperialism and yes, they of often make a lot of mistakes, but these are criticized or debated in leftist circles, but not usually among the libs, who rehash old, debunked arguments usually.

          From what I’ve seen, most MLS support individual liberty but understand it’s curtailing in situations where countries are still the US. The US and the west are still the most powerful empires in the world and they’re still trying to destroy communism and do imperialism. That’s why they support Israel’s genocide. That’s why they keep trying to do coups in Venezuela every election year, why the US still embargos Cuba, why they still are trying to get countries to privatize their natural resources for foreign companies and they destroy the whole country if they don’t (like I’m Iraq or Syria), why they constantly try to yellow scare with China but don’t give a fuck about the wars Saudi Arabia starts with other countries, it’s why we have military bases in almost every country in the world. These things are still happening today, the US didn’t just start becoming good and non-imperialist or pro-communist and no one wants to be like the USSR when it turned into Russia, where everything was sold off to the highest bidder and quality of life fell off a cliff that’s only now just starting to recover again.