I’ve been trying to find a good Marxist instance, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear are widely hated. Why is that? Are there any good leftist instances?
For the same reason people hate the Nazi trolls. Extreme left or right does not matter. Normal people don’t want that garbage.
I can’t speak about lemmygrad since the instances I’m on all defederate from it, but Hexbear users have a reputation for being generally aggressive, grating, and immature. It’s like that kid in class who keeps interrupting the teacher because they think they’re funny and clever. e.g., some were screaming at me that I can’t be an anarchist and I know nothing about anarchism since I’m married, replying with third-grade tier memes for some confusing reason
Thought I should add it was them informing me that certain countries banning same-sex marriage while endorsing heterosexual marriage is just fine, actually. They espoused an objectively homophobic belief, and when I referenced my own marriage, they switched to calling me ignorant about anarchism. There are anarchist texts exploring the issue and some of the potential problems with traditions like marriage, but it’s not dogma. Nor do I view my own relationship as hierarchical.
TL;DR They were being objectively homophobic.
This has the energy of a white gay man in a marriage pointing at a trans polycule and calling them homophobic because they said he had a bad take about how bourgeois privileges are more important than positive rights for queer homeless people.
White gay men wielding their gayness as a cudgel against people who are queerer and more marginalized then them sure is a gross thing to see.
Your comment is a perfect example of the pants-shittingly off-topic LGBTphobic nonsense I was receiving in the other thread, so thanks for proving my point.
You … you do realize that trans people and other “queerer” people than me engage in same-sex marriage too, right? And that it’s objectively homophobic for a policy to exist forbidding same-sex marriage while permitting heterosexual marriage? And that not all trans people are poly? I know people that fit all of the above, and every one of them deserves validation, and it would be unfathomably LGBTphobic for me to arbitrarily determine which ones are “queer enough” to be part of the community. You don’t see the problem with this line of thinking, with your entire statement? Of course you do, you’re just being deliberately cruel for your own amusement.
There it is, folks. Exhibit A
Edit: That user is a moderator on !worldnews@lemmy.ml
I’m unsubscribing immediately! And I blocked and reported that user, too.
My love is for all the LGBT+ community, and for the straight cis community as well. I just want equity. For anyone who had to read that homophobic comment above, just know that I do care, and I’m here for you.
And that it’s objectively homophobic for a policy to exist forbidding same-sex marriage while permitting heterosexual marriage?
Yes!
Do you acknowledge that some countries like the US which allow gay marriage materially harm lgbt people more than some countries that have banned gay marriage? Or is it only homophobic when it impacts your middle class ass?
Do you acknowledge that many socialist countries are progressive and moving toward more rights, and just starting from a worse starting point because of violently enforced colonial attitudes from countries that now claim to be progressive?
Do you acknowledge that Cuba, a socialist nation that you’d accuse of being tankie, is the place where lgbt people have the most material rights?
Do you acknowledge that communists have led every single queer liberation movement that has forced concessions from ruling governments? Or do you want to whitewash the communists out of stonewall?
You … you do realize that trans people and other “queerer” people than me engage in same-sex marriage too, right?
Yes, I’m one of them. And I’d happily give up my right to be married if it would erase queer homelessness, and erase conversion therapy camps, and erase the continual murder of black and indigenous trans women in our society.
You sound like one of these kind of gays; please quit the bad-faith crybully phobia-jacketing bullshit
As several scholars have noted, contemporary gay life is marked by high levels of racism directed towards gay men of color by gay white men, with much of the racism manifesting itself as negative sexual attitudes towards, and sexual exclusion or fetishization of, non-white men (Armstrong 2002; Bérubé 2001; Epstein 1996; McBride 2005; Tenunis, 2007).
Lemmygrad does have its heated gamer moments but overall they’re waaaaay better than hexbear when it comes to post quality.
some were screaming at me that I can’t be an anarchist and I know nothing about anarchism since I’m married, replying with third-grade tier memes for some confusing reason
Sounds like Hexbear to me
Do you want to hear the punchline? I caught a temp ban for expressing my plan to block their instance as soon as that is made possible for users. I will admit I was a bit harsh in that I said I wanted them to be “effectively silenced,” but this was extremely mild compared to their comments to me.
Exactly this. They are not leftist, they are just a bunch of idiot trolls who use extreme left views as a means of pissing people off. Their views, according to their posts, are cartoonishly extremist. And that’s why people don’t like them.
I fully agree. The problem is when we point out that they’re not leftist, they assume it’s because we conflate leftism with liberalism, whereas this is not the case at all. I think they’re not leftist because their antisocial/anti-human beliefs are antithetical to the concept of community and only serve to derail any chance we have to work together to create a new system. I can’t imagine that anyone who legitimately seeks the goal of a stateless, classless society would behave as they do.
Generally, they aren’t marxists, they’re “tankies”. And even fairly extreme socialists tend to dislike that. That’s lemmygrad.
Hexbear is just filled with trolls that federated specifically to troll and disrupt the rest of lemmy in the name of their beliefs.
On either, you can find individuals that are perfectly cool to talk to. But it’s like rolling the dice where only snake eyes win. And, even when you win, you can’t be certain that it isn’t a long troll waiting to fuck with you because some of them do that too.
“Tankie” is a term that’s applied to literally any communist. I’ve heard it used against Trotskyists and fucking social democrats.
So, what’s actually the problem with them? Are they Maoists? CPC apologists?
deleted by creator
They like Stalin, Putin , Xi and Kim. And defend everything they do.
Like WTF? How can a communist defend putin!?
How can someone misrepresent so bad what we defend? Yes, we indeed like Stalin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un. They are/were commendable leaders who suffer from delusional propaganda created by the West. I don’t claim they are perfect, like Stalin personally committed mistakes (I say personally because he wasn’t the only leader in the USSR, there was a collective leadership by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), but we don’t like Putin.
We understand the Ukraine war as a result of NATO expansion and aggression. But Putin is a right-wing conservative leader. We understand Russia as a capitalist country, but also a nation with the right to self-determine its destiny, like all other nations. And the West, through NATO and the extreme right-wing (fascist) puppet regime in Ukraine, has been trying to undermine the sovereignty and self-determination of Russia.
Though we criticize Putin as a leader and the Russian government in general, we support Russia’s right to defend itself from aggression. It’s a more nuanced position than “defending Putin” like liberal “leftists” usually portray.
Regarding the 2nd point I just cannot see it.
Whilst I do admit that the US loves their devious little diplomatic plays I doubt Ukraine would have joined NATO. Take Sweden as an example to showcase how hard it actually is for a country to join the alliance if one country doesn’t play the game. And pre-war Ukraine would likely have faced backlash by more than just one country.
Even during the war when public support in the west for Ukraine was at it’s peak, when asked about if he could concretize what safety guarantees the G7 countries could give to a post-war Ukraine, German chancellor Olaf Scholz just replied: “Yes, I could…” and refused to elaborate further.
And French president Macron once considered NATO as a whole to be “brain dead” and wanted to shift it’s focus away from it. (A view I shared back then)
And now, a few years later NATO is - even by a lot of people who once opposed it - regarded as a safety guarantee with Finland and Sweden joining. So if the plan was to prevent an aggressive NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders that plan failed miserably and at the cost of thousands of civilians and soldiers, the world economics and the environment.
Only the arms industry profits now.
Whilst I do admit that the US loves their devious little diplomatic plays I doubt Ukraine would have joined NATO
Here are mentions of Ukraine in the last NATO Summit before the war:
- We reiterate our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognised borders. […]
- We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. […]
Whether, they intended to accept Ukraine as an actual member of NATO, it’s an undeniable fact that NATO has been expanding to Eastern Europe and towards Russia. It’s an undeniable fact that the Ukrainian governments at least since 2014 have been promoting anti-Russian rhetoric and attacking Russian civilians inside the country. It’s an undeniable fact that NATO and Ukraine have been doing many exercises and drills for years, as well as other non-NATO countries close to Russia, such as Georgia and Moldova.
So if the plan was to prevent an aggressive NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders that plan failed miserably and at the cost of thousands of civilians and soldiers, the world economics and the environment.
I don’t think that was Russia’s plan. NATO will continue expanding irrespective of what Russia does, because Russia has a huge territory which would be more useful to exploit by Western countries if it was fragmented and balkanized. This is a Western plan since Nazi Germany and has been in operation since then. What Russia has done was a preemptive attack against an aggressive regime spewing Nazi rhetoric against Russians with full military and logistic support by the US and Europe. What prompted the Russian leadership to being the invasion was the US sending military equipment such as intermediate and short-range ballistic and cruise missiles to Ukraine, already preparing for war.
If Russia did not invade Ukraine, it would have been the other way around in a matter of time. It was thoroughly planned by Western countries and leadership for years.
What exactly is the problem with 14. this is how it should be. After all, borders shouldn’t be recognised for nothing you know.
- does indeed highlight the goal of Ukraine becoming an eventual member but it doesn’t state when. They’d certainly need to clarify Crimea first so that Ukraine doesn’t join and trigger Article 5 on Crimea. And as I said, looking at Sweden I’d not be so sure about the if either.
And even if Ukraine became a member state it wouldn’t be that easy to just attack Russia and expect NATO to help. They’re not allowed to trigger Article 5 if they are the aggressor and triggering Article 4 would likely not succeed as the risks of (nuclear) backlash are too high. I am aware that I am making assumptions here, and that this part might vary depending on the picture you have of NATO and their member states but I am certain, that they would not be so stupid to trigger a war that would likely be very unpopular within the populations of the various member states. But that point is overall highly debatable.
Regarding the point about Nato expansion: yes, the fact that it has expanded regardless of that oral treaty is a pity. But on the other hand, why would you so desperately hold on to something that apparently wasn’t even worth making a REAL treaty for. A signed one on paper. You cannot tell me anybody would be naive enough to take something that was orally agreed on without a signed treaty on paper for granted when the last decades have made it clear that sometimes even signed treaties aren’t worth their paper. Of course it’s a move of betrayal for Russia but as I mentioned, the US is good at provoking and oral assurances aren’t exactly something I would trust.
And on the other Hand, Russia hasn’t been that innocent either with a habit of solving disagreements with especially Georgia & Ukraine by using deterrence and the sledgehammer. And fair enough, that Ukraine hasn’t been innocent either. That’s for example why I was pretty neutral / hostile towards both sides before the war began. I especially dislike(d) how badly Ukraine tried and still tries to erase it’s Soviet history.
But (at least for me) that still does not justify the means.
Regarding your last claim: do you have any evidence to back that up? I heard numerous claims that both Russia & Nato got invasion plans for plenty of countries. I read articles (or in that case just their headlines because I thought of them to be absurd) that Russia had concrete plans for attacking Japan and Kazakhstan and what not, and likewise I read these kinda claims from the other side.
But as far as I am concerned these sorts of articles only exist to lure you towards a side and or make quick cash by spreading havoc and hate.
In any case I might call it a day. I need to get some stuff done. Was a nice debate tho. Might reply tomorrow if there’s anything else. Stay safe & healthy my lemmygrader comrades haha.
What exactly is the problem with 14. this is how it should be. After all, borders shouldn’t be recognised for nothing you know.
They specifically mention Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. They could’ve said they reiterate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of any country, or of any European country, whatever. But they specifically listed these countries which they have a massive influence on. So it’s a sign there was something going on there.
But on the other hand, why would you so desperately hold on to something that apparently wasn’t even worth making a REAL treaty for.
A treaty is certainly more concrete, and I agree with you. What’s important about this exchange is that the Russians made it clear they found NATO expansion threatening since the 90’s and every time it expanded it was thoroughly and systematically condemned by Russian authorities. NATO continued expanding nonetheless, warning after warning. NATO was looking for war, and pushing Eastern European countries towards war with Russia.
And on the other Hand, Russia hasn’t been that innocent either with a habit of solving disagreements with especially Georgia & Ukraine by using deterrence and the sledgehammer.
But (at least for me) that still does not justify the means.
Certainly. The idea is not to justify the war, but to understand it in context. These were countries which were under Russian influence for at least a century and only recently weaponized to struggle against Russia. This does not exempt Russia, obviously, though context is always necessary.
Regarding your last claim: do you have any evidence to back that up?
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Ukrainian internal military documents, I can only attest it through indirect evidence. First, since the 2014 Euromaidan coup, Ukraine has been adopting an anti-Russian rhetoric and accepted neo-Nazi batallions (Azov, Pravy Sektor) into their army. This form of Nazism was against Russians specifically, treating them as subhumans. Also since 2014, these neo-Nazi militias has constantly harassed ethnically Russian people inside Ukraine on the Donbass region.
The Ukrainian government adopted textbooks in schools which taught children to hate Russia, see some evidence of this in this article by Sputnik (it’s a Russian source, but there are exceptional journalists from dozens of countries there). Here is an anti-Russian Ukrainian propaganda video being shown in a classroom way before the war, to illustrate this point.
This article by the Tricontinental directly responds to your question, too. It mentions how Ukraine military increased its spending by 500% from 2014–2019 and received military equipment from the West, along with military trainining, exercises and drills with NATO troops.
More indirect evidence includes this article from RAND Corporation, which is a very influential think-tank which serves as an advisor to the Pentagon. The article discusses strategies to “stress” the Russian economy, through exploiting its vulnerabilities and prompting a “costly Russian response.” Among the geopolitical measures suggested, there is:
Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.
Increasing U.S. forces in Europe, increasing European NATO member ground capabilities, and deploying a large number of NATO forces on the Russian border would likely have only limited effects on extending Russia. All the options would enhance deterrence, but the risks vary. A general increase in NATO ground force capabilities in Europe—including closing European NATO member readiness gaps and increasing the number of U.S. forces stationed in traditional locations in Western Europe—would have limited risks. But large-scale deployments on Russia’s borders would increase the risk of conflict with Russia, particularly if perceived as challenging Russia’s position in eastern Ukraine, Belarus, or the Caucasus.
At least for me, it shows the US military leadership was researching ways to actively provoke and cause a response from Russia so it hurts their economy. And since the US also had a finger in the Euromaidan coup of 2014, it’s very clear that the US was using Ukraine as an agent of a proxy war to affect the Russian economy for years before the Russian invasion.
II hear this constantly, I have yet to see it one time ever by ANY communists on ANY website.
Visit a few Ukraine threads, it’s one of the topics the fanatics pile on.
My point was that tankies are a “special” subset of communists.I have. I’ve still never seen it. What I do constantly see in those threads is dehumanization of Russian people and calls for mass genocide of them, though. Calling them orcs and talking about how they all deserve to die.
I don’t believe you, to be honest. One can acknowledge Russian security concerns (like multiple U.S. military officials and many high members of the UN have) without praising Putin. And I’ve still never seen a single communist say anything good about Putin. On any website.
What I do constantly see in those threads is dehumanization of Russian people and calls for mass genocide of them, though. Calling them orcs and talking about how they all deserve to die.
In Lemmygrad? Please link us any comment made by a Lemmygrad user which corresponds to what you just described. This seems absurd.
No, I see those in Ukraine threads, not specifically on Lemmygrad. Actually, I see it most on lemmy world, overall. Sorry, I should’ve articulated that more clearly.
I’ve never seen what you’re describing. Not about Russians anyway. I’ve seen far too many zionists saying that shit about Palestinians tho.
I’m glad for your sake. It’s pretty gross.
People who throw the word “tankie” around indiscriminately aren’t using it right. From what I’ve seen, it applies specifically to extreme communist fanboys who are apologists for communist militarism. For example, Tankies will say that the Tiananmen Square massacre was either justified or didn’t happen.
Just being a fan of communism doesn’t make someone a tankie.
Edit: see below for an excellent example
People who throw the word “tankie” around indiscriminately aren’t using it right
There’s no right way to use it, because it’s a completely meaningless term which only serves to discriminate and isolate those who support more radical views, such as a defense of revolution against capitalist dictatorship.
it applies specifically to extreme communist fanboys who are apologists for communist militarism
There are “military apologists” among the conservative population which admires the Soviet Union because of its army. Are they tankies as well?
I see this as an aversion against violence in general, common among liberal “leftists”. Someone who is deserving of the label “communist” simply don’t reject violence as a way to fight against the capitalist system, which is already a very violent system. Communists do not support unjustified violence, but they simply don’t condemn it in a revolutionary process. All successful revolutions were a violent, brutal process, to defend an abstract non-violent revolution is simply falling into idealism and losing sight of reality and history.
Tankies will say that the Tiananmen Square massacre was either justified or didn’t happen.
As what liberal leftists would call a “Tankie”, the Tiananmen Square protests did in fact happen. What didn’t happen is the army gunning down on students and civilians. There is not a single footage of that happening. And even eyewitnesses of what happened there, like a Chilean diplomat whose cable has leaked in WikiLeaks for public view, they all say they didn’t see any army member shooting people. They saw hurt people, bleeding people, and even army soldiers being killed and burned down. A lot of people were hurt in the midst of the confusion of protests. But not a single army soldier shot a single student on that day.
What you don’t know about Tiananmen Square protests is that while some policies of the Communist Party of China generated a dissatisfaction among the younger population, the protests were largely financed and fueled by the UK and US, especially by the “National Endowment for Democracy”, an organization specialized in recruiting and training leaderships of mass protests, used for regime change operations through color revolutions.
Sounds like Lemmy’s version of r/atheism 10+ years ago. Atheism itself is fine, but the sub became an insufferable circle jerk.
Thank you!
So, as others mentioned, they’re tankies. They circle jerk about how “the west” is entirely responsible for every bad thing that ever happened. They blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the West, they deny the oppression of the Uyghur people as pure western propaganda…
Any time you cite something horrible Russia or Iran or China or North Korea does, they say “the west is just as bad,” draw some false equivalencies, and then proceed to explain why that means that the West is the only bad thing and there’s nothing at all wrong with Russia or China.
And… they’re so aggressive about it. It’s not just that their opinions are so detestable, but that they brigade other threads and insist that everybody who isn’t actively bombing US government buildings is evil.
They’re annoying. On the fediverse, that might be the highest sin.
God yeah. Even if they had some interesting ideas they’ve been lost to all the circle jerking that there’s no way of seeing how any of them can be taken seriously.
deleted by creator
They are hardline Marxist-Leninists, something that is very rare in the western world even amongst those who identify as leftist or socialist. If their views make you uncomfortable, then you’re not a ML, which is okay.
Left-wing politics is a very broad spectrum, and a lot of Lemmy users lean towards the more moderate end which brings them into conflict with the more radical communities that are Lemmygrad and Hexbear.
That’s all there is to it.
deleted by creator
And they’re not artificially suppressed like they are on other social media platforms.
*depending on what instance you’re on
They are defederated from a lot of instances, from their own side or the other’s (my instance is defederated from LG and HB defederated itself from my instance)
A correction: Lemmygrad and Hexbear are two different instances, and it’s an oversimplification to lump them in together. Lemmygrad does not defederate from any real instance, we have possibly one of the smallest block lists of any bigger instances.
That’s all there is to it.
That’s it? Nothing about their notoriety for posting pictures of pigs pooping on their balls as part of their lively defense of MLism?
That’s not a defense, per se; that’s them telling you you are no longer worth the dialogue. You crackers aren’t worth debating.
Far-left echo chamber that from my experience really hates Jews.
Well it’s because they are Marxist.
In the Lemmy culture Marxism has a very bad name because almost religious overtones of its adherents.Which is of ironically very much what Marx was warning against. But that’s how it works right now.
Leninism is antithetical to Marxism. As you said. If they were Marxist there wouldn’t be a big issue. They’re Leninist as an angry 13 year old can be. Combined with the fact that people in the West, the US especially, have no idea what either one is. And that’s the problem.
Neoliberal McCarthyism good fascism okay communism bad
blue eyes blonde hair good democracy people everyone else bad ebil totalitarian
deleted by creator
I believe you’ve answered your own question.
Lemmy isn’t Marxist-only. The majority of Lemmy users are what the more vocal Lemmygrad and Hexbear users deride as “libs.” As a thought experiment, imagine that you are one of us for a moment and then browse Local on one of those.
Thought experiment; Don’t be a lib.
Thought experiment; shut the fuck up.
nazi bar cracker ratio’d to death lmfao
Even better - don’t be a tankie
[fart noise]
Define tankie.
As an anarchist, I’ve been called a tankie so many times basically for expressing views left of Ronald Reagan. Why should one not be a tankie?
Don’t be a useful idiot of the State Department
Exhibit #1 why Hexbear/Lemmygrad are unpopular: this guy
this fella’s face when they posted that:
Some people are to hypothetical conversation what a boulder is to the wind.
If a communist isn’t hated by the capitalist establishment, he isn’t a real communist. (I do not imply that being hated by the establishment alone qualifies you to be a communist)
And the remainder of lemmy is the capitalist establishment?
Nah, you’re wannabes who will never hold enough capital to count, which is why we slag you when you dig in your heels in the first place. There’s nothing more simultaneously sad or funny than ‘temporarily embarrassed’ capitalists with no capital; especially when you haven’t even bothered scrubbing the Oxford polish off your lips before fixing them to talk to us. You are footsoldiers of chauvinist racism, colonial genocide, and climate apocalypse, and you will be the death of all of us.
With all that in mind, what makes you think you or yours are owed any respectful dialogue?
- Full of insults and yet- asks others how they think they’re owned respectful dialogue.
THIS Is the perfect example of the children in Lemmygrad and Hexbear.
I own two shoe factories and a cotton farm, you?
A lot of it is McCarthyism, though i’ve personally had my problems with hexbear and you should probably stay away from them.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t be a fan of a nazi or islamist instance either. One for communists is hardly any different as far I’m concerned. They’re all groups of extremists that I don’t want anything to do with. Just look at the modlog of this instance for example. Exhibit B is the fact that this message will get deleted in couple hours and I’ll likely be banned.
