Skip Navigation

User banner

Cowbee [he/they]

@ Cowbee @lemmy.ml

Posts
1
Comments
1172
Joined
3 yr. ago

Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us

He/him or they/them, doesn't matter too much

Marxist-Leninist ☭

Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my Marxist-Leninist study guides, both basic and advanced!

  • Block lemmy.ml if lemmy feels tirening.

    Jump

  • As the person effected, it seems pretty suspicious when my entire comment history going back a few weeks at a time steadily get a stream of 5-10 downvotes within a short timeframe, despite lacking any movement, or when a comment of mine gets downvoted suspiciously by a ton of people despite a similar comment being more upvoted than not right next to it in the comment tree.

    Also, I don't think I'm Dessalines' favorite poster, whatever that means.

  • Block lemmy.ml if lemmy feels tirening.

    Jump

  • Nobody believes the USSR is still here. This is a made-up strawman point, and talking to literally any communist will tell you this.

  • Block lemmy.ml if lemmy feels tirening.

    Jump

  • China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Russia is a capitalist country, nobody says it's leftist in any way. The only support Russia gets is with respect to the fact that it opposes the current hegemonic force of western imperialism, no further than that.

  • Threadiverse Major Defederations Graph

    Jump

  • I haven't seen Lemmygrad brigading, trolling, or arguing in bad-faith. Active users going into active threads organically isn't the same as brigading, which is typically associated with coordinated targeting. This can seem like "dogpiling" in practice, but again, this same behavior is exhibited by non-communists, same with what can be perceived as trolling or bad-faith arguments (and anecdotally I see far more of that on instances that aren't predominantly leftist).

    In the end, it's ideology, not specific traits, as ideological differences cause not just communists but non-communists to behave in similar confrontational manners. Lemmygrad.ml aren't especially bad-faith, trolling, etc, just like Lemmy.world isn't. Both have distinct ideological identities and this difference caused friction.

  • Threadiverse Major Defederations Graph

    Jump

  • I don't think it's unreasonable to say that communists will generally oppose anticommunist viewpoints, and certainly critique non-communist views. Communists also tend to be political activists, so we also care quite a lot, which can often spill out into heated exchanges. This isn't unique to communists, though, liberals are the same way for views they don't align with. Therefore, the biggest difference and the reason for defederation is ideological, after all, irreconcilable political differences.

  • Threadiverse Major Defederations Graph

    Jump

  • Have you visited Lemmygrad.ml? Just click on some of the threads, there's much less hostility than most Lemmy.world threads. The idea that the commies on Grad are bloodthirsty beasts or something is more a consequence of their wide defederation causing defederated instances to project their imagination, not an actual analysis of how they act.

  • lemmy is SUCH a relief from reddit

    Jump

  • I tend to prefer it as an approach. Hexbear is a left unity site, it doesn't have a predominant ideology, so down votes as a way to discipline ideology don't work nor function properly. Downvotes are most useful on sites with ideological conformit, like Lemmygrad.ml.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • What is missing from the claim "tankie is a pejorative for supporters of existing socialism?" Should I include "AES" as the commonly used acronym?

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • Markets are not capitalism, and public ownership is not socialism. Socialism is a form of economy where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Even if we took the incorrect stance that public ownership is socialism, and markets are capitalism, the largest and most important firms and industries in China are all publicly owned. Is your point that small, petty production and medium firms are the key to China's success?

    Secondly, calling me a liar after I disproved your lies is the peak of cope. Blocking me because you cannot respond is dishonest. Just admit to being out of your depth, don't triple down.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • Not trying to piss anyone off, the category of "tankie" is occupied by people that defend socialist states. That's it, in practice. Nebulous conceptions do not actually describe the group we are talking about, while support for existing socialism absolutely does.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • The fact that you continue to believe China to be evidence against socialism is proof that you, again, do not understand socialism and communism. Socialism is not about dogmatically collectivizing everything, regardless of the situation. It's a scientific approach. Markets play a subservient role in China's economy, which is dominated by massive state owned enterprises. Markets play a progressive role in creating developed productive forces that can then become centrally planned. It's not that socialism can't work on its own, it's that the system is already socialist, and fully planned economy requires higher developed productive forces than China presently has to be fully effective.

    There is no child nor slave labor in China. There is no "elite class," the CPC is dominated by the proletariat. The state does wield massive power, correct! It uses it against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries that would overturn socialism.

    As for Xinjiang, no, there is no genocide. Western allegations of genocide didn't stick due to lack of evidence, and as such the west turned to vague allegations of "human rights abuses." These allegations are largely dramatized and exaggerated, but still, you can start to put together the lack of credibility. That's not enough, though, to dismiss. Where did they come from? And why?

    Prior to the establishment of de-radicalization programs, western-backed terrorist attacks were common, in order to disrupt the Belt and Road initiative (where Xinjiang is key to expanding westward). These included:

    • July 5, 2009: The Urumqi Riots resulted in 197 deaths, and 1700 wounded in mass stabbings.
    • October 28, 2013: Tian'anmen Attack, 5 killed, 40 wouded, when a Jeep was driven directly into crowds.
    • March 1, 2014: Kunming Train Station Attack, 31 killed, 141 wounded. 8 jihadists committed mass stabbings.
    • May 22, 2014: Urumqi Attack, 39 killed, 94 injured as 2 attackers drove cars into crowds and threw explosives at buildings.

    And many more. Since the de-radicalization efforts, these attacks have gone down to effectively 0. The reason for these attacks was because Xinjiang is geostrategic for the Belt and Road initiative, which is why the west stoked anti-China sentiment among the Uyghur peoples, funding terrorist groups and separatists. When China responded not with tanks and bombs but with vocational centers and investment in the region, the west pivoted to claims of "genocide," then walked those claims back to "human rights abuses" when no evidence for genocide materialized.

    I recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China's response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

    Qiao Collective also has Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation as well. This is my personal recommendation for a Chinese Marxist perspective.

    "General authoritarianism" is a nonsense claim. All states are monopolies on violence. What matters is which class controls the state, not if this or that state has power, as they all do. In China, the proletariat is the ruling class, and they use this authority to direct production and distribution towards pro-social ends. This is because China is a socialist country.

    You have no coherent analysis, so you just resort to insult. It's deeply unserious behavior.

  • Threadiverse Major Defederations Graph

    Jump

  • Lemmygrad.ml is a Marxist-Leninist instance. The users are very chill there normally, so the reason for defederation is ideological.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • China is a socialist country, the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and the working classes control the state. The fact that they have some level of private capital in underdeveloped industry does not mean they are a "mix" of capitalism and communism, socialism is a transition between capitalism and communism and therefore has elements of each, while being principally socialist. I already explained fairly well the status of ML countries, they are doing fairly well right now, especially China.

    As for communism not being a global system, what do you mean? Since Marx, communists have long understood that communism must be global. Everything preceding it but in transition towards that is socialism.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • Communism is a global, fully collectivized system of production and distribution devoid of classes, the state, and money. It's a post-socialist mode of production and distribution. You are referring to socialist countries that have been run by communist parties.

    In any case, I'll answer in order.

    The Soviet Union was a resounding success for the working classes, the reward for their triumph over capital being doubled life expectancies, tripled literacy rates to 99.9%, dramatic improvements to housing quality and a near eradication of homelessness, free and high quality education and healthcare, unprecedented equality of the sexes, and stable economic growth up until its dissolution. It was gradually undermined by reforms that split the socialist system against itself, a lesson other socialist states have learned from.

    The PRC is the world's largest economy by PPP, the longest standing socialist country, and is continuing it's path to developing higher and higher levels of socialism. The populace recieved many similar benefits to those in the USSR, and unlike the USSR they are becoming the clear world power. Socialism is presenting itself as the only logical path forward thanks to their success.

    Cuba is struggling. Though they have done a tremendous amount thanks to their socialist system, decades of brutal blockades and sabotage by the world's largest empire have left it woefully underdeveloped. Thanks to partnership with comrades in China, they are rapidly developing solar power, and therefore energy independence.

    The DPRK is stronger than ever before. Thanks to their policy of nuclear deterrence, they have been able to peacefully develop their socialist system and gradually minimize the stark divide between the developed and underdeveloped portions of the region. Trade with Russia and China has resulted in an economic boom, brought upon by sanctions on Russia in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

    Venezuela was never governed by a communist party. It never solidified socialism either. It's currently in retreat after the US Empire kidnapped their democratically elected president, and are recovering from economic terrorism by the US combined with the fallout from Earthquakes.

    You didn't mention them, but Vietnam and Laos are doing well now as well.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • I know how you defined it, I just wanted to know why you think it's a better definition despite yours being more subjective and incomplete. Being misogynistic and ableist isn't a substitution for a point.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • You directly implied it by stating the following:

    Keep on topic: tankie isn't a replacement word for leftists and never has been.

    That's straight from you, the implication being that this is my position, which it isn't. Either way, "authoritarian" is not an objective and measurable term, being ableist doesn't improve your point.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • I don't see where you're going with this crashout, as much as you say you are "objectively correct" you still haven't explained why you believe it's a better definition than what I gave.

    What does it mean to "act authoritarian?" Tell me in an objective way.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • I never said "tankie is a replacement word for leftists," I said it's a pejorative for those who support existing socialist states. Your definition, as I explained in the other comment, is horrendously subjective and ill-defined. "Authoritarian" isn't an objective term, and moreover it means that anarchists that get called "tankie" are suddenly "authoritarian," when most who use the word authoritarian would not consider anarchists to be such.

    The reason it makes sense to acknowledge that tankies are whoever defends and supports existing socialist states is because it objectively covers the vast majority of people who would be called tankie, without applying to those who would not be. It's an objective definition and clearly defined.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • The definition you gave is an attempt to understand a colloquially used term that has expanded from it's original conception, as a term used against British communists that supported the suppression of the Hungarian counter-revolution. Saying tankies are "authleft" is an utterly meaningless term, considering "authoritarian left" is a horrendously ill-defined term in and of itself.

    The definition I gave is objective, if someone supports the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba, former USSR, they are almost certainly going to be called a tankie at some point. It's a clear, objective measure of whether or not someone will be considered a tankie by those who take the term seriously.

    I don't think your crashout accusing me of being illiterate is going to help your point at all, anyone can clearly tell that I'm not illiterate nor stupid.

  • PSA: The Tesseract frontend includes a hardcoded hidden instance blacklist with all leftist and trans-friendly instances.

    Jump

  • You didn't explain how I'm wrong, though. You've not yet engaged with what I said. If we are going strictly by dictionary definitions, then it would only apply to British communists that supported suppressing the Hungarian counter-revolt, and I'm not British so I can't be a tankie by that definition. Every other definition beyond that original one is an attempt to understand how it is used colloquially, since it has clearly broadened in scope, and I answered that well in my opinion.