For all your boycotting needs. I’m sure there’s some mods caught in lemmy.ml’s top 10 that are perfectly upstanding and reasonable people, my condolences for the cross-fire.

  1. !memes@lemmy.world and !memes@sopuli.xyz. Or of course communities that rule.
  2. !asklemmy@lemmy.world
  3. !linux@programming.dev. Quite small, plenty of more specific ones available. Also linux is inescapable on lemmy anyway :)
  4. !programmer_humor@programming.dev
  5. !world@lemmy.world
  6. !privacy@lemmy.world and maybe !privacyguides@lemmy.one, lemmy.one itself seems to be up in the air. !fedigrow@lemm.ee says !privacy@lemmy.ca. They really seem to be hiding even from another, those tinfoil hats :)
  7. !technology@lemmy.world
  8. Seems like !comicstrips@lemmy.world and !comicbooks@lemmy.world, various smaller comic-specifc communities as well as !eurographicnovels@lemm.ee
  9. !opensource@programming.dev
  10. !fuckcars@lemmy.world

(Out of the loop? Here’s a thread on lemmy.ml mods and their questionable behaviour)

  • joel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nobody is talking about marxists or leftists here, tankies are a breed of their own

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      What Marxists get the “not a tankie” pass? Marx and Engels both called themselves authoritarian.

      • barsoap@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Council communists, definitely, functionally that’s the same as Syndicalism. Some Trotski and Tito fans. A lot of Cubans, over there authoritarianism seems to be more and more a habit than principle.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          So nobody that has actually succeeded in putting theory to practice in hundreds of years, got it.

          Don’t you think it might be that you’re predisposed to not liking any AES countries at all because it’s easier to denounce real attempts for not being “authentic enough” than it is to truthfully acknowledge what went right and what went wrong in them?

          • barsoap@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m actually quite positive when it comes to Cuba, and Vietnam might follow suit. The rest range from falling to capitalism to falling to fascism.

            Anyhow this wasn’t about the success or failure of “AES” countries but making clear that not all Marxists are tankies.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              The Marxists you called not Tankies were the ones that haven’t done much, except Cuba. Cuba would probably count as Tankie to you though because Che was a Stalinist and Castro has stated that China post-Deng is Socialist.

              That’s the thing, judging countries not by their purity to Socialism but by how they stand against Imperialism and for their own people is how they should be judged. China absolutely isn’t a shining beacon, but it’s less Capitalist and far less Imperialist than the US, for example, yet people love to say we should support Biden over Trump while denouncing China more than the US.

              That’s what I am referring to.

              • barsoap@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Che was highly critical of Stalin’s authoritarianism and cult of personality. The, you know, defining factors of Stalinism in modern parlance.

                And I have no idea why you’re bringing up the US or how it’s relevant to anything, are you American or something they love to do that, all self-important.

                With regards to imperialism: Do you know how I earned my permaban from lemmygrad? As a, quote, “NATO propagandist”? By telling them that Russian imperialism evil. I don’t even like NATO, short of it being a vehicle to keep the US somewhat on a leash. The month ban from !worldnews@lemmy.ml was for pointing out that Ukraine does not in fact lay claims to Russian territory Ukraine describes as “Historically Ukrainian-speaking”. Because they don’t. As the article that OP there linked said itself.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  As are many. He still openly supported Stalin and read Stalin:

                  “In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context. I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Series of things that are very good.” -Che Guevara

                  I think it’s a bit hypocritical to wash the words of revolutionaries you claimed were good Marxists. Of course he was critical of Stalin, everyone is. He banned homosexuality, was generally a brutal person, and ended up building a cult of personality that partially helped lead to the collapse of the USSR. Che still supported him.

                  The comparison to America was because people can easily find nuance within liberalism but only accept the purest and most righteous of Socialism, even if it ends up never existing. It loses its revolutionary potential and becomes Idealism.

                  As for your bans, I don’t really have the full picture. Based on what you have claimed and that alone, I believe they went too far, but I would also like to see it from the mod’s perspectives.

                  • barsoap@lemm.eeOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    I think it’s a bit hypocritical to wash the words of revolutionaries you claimed were good Marxists.

                    I never said “Che was one of the good ones”. I called Cuba promising (as in: On its way to proper democratic socialism) and I called Council Communist essentially Anarchists.

                    If you want me to say something positive about Marx we’d have to talk labour theory of value or such.

                    It loses its revolutionary potential and becomes Idealism.

                    See from the anarchist POV most Marxist-type socialisms are idealism, down to mostly two factors: a) no means/ends unity, making failure inevitable, and b) trying to foresee the future. We, at our current level of understanding of human nature and society, influenced by various material factors holding us back in terms of even imagination, cannot possibly craft plans that would be appropriate for our grandchildren: The revolution must necessarily be gradual because that’s the only way that our descendants get to put us up against the wall for being counter-revolutionary. Without those things there cannot be theory of revolution that’s actually material.