I think their instance admin was the guy behind the tesseract scandal a few months ago, might want to look into that if you haven't heard of it.

Basically snuck a hidden blob into a "small" update that shadowbans a bunch of users and keywords. Doesn't sound that bad on the surface, but the implementation was really shady, the blacklist itself was sloppily constructed, and the way he handled the fallout when people called him out on it was really immature.

If I have this confused with a different instance, then my bad. I think he's involved with sh.itjustworks at a fairly high level too though.

There's a couple graphics floating around somewhere mapping defederations of major instances if you want alternatives. I'll see if I can dig them up.

You could have just checked a dictionary

Lemmy is developed by communists, the communists were here first.

You said he thinks that voting for democrats is accelerationist, and he explained why he believes that.

You claimed that he thinks all of leftist thought is whatever tankies think (a pretty vague claim, tankie is not exactly a well established term), and then you use some flowery sequence of platitudes without real refutable specifics to propose a broader definition of leftism. Cowbee responds by clarifying what he believes leftism is, which is broader than his own ideology.

What words are you saying he ignored? Are you upset he didn't answer "how ya been?" Are you confused as to which comment he's responding to?

Fortunately, it also has instructions on how to build your own bar, with built-in methods to kick out the Nazis.

Lemmy was indeed made for the purpose of spreading communism, as a reaction to Reddit's censorship. Communism isn't "misinformation and hate" though, that's your ideological spin on it.

The study directly shows a negative correlation between those who believe the system represents a valid path to change, and those who organize against the system. This is my point. I did not say "people who vote will organize less," I said funelling people into electoralism and treating it as the primary means of change deflates revolutionary organizing. These are distinct and separate points, and since you cannot argue against my actual point, you make up strawmen.

They are targeting a vague group that they claim has these traits. There's no direct attack on any ideology specifically, nor any instance specifically, so we have to fill in the gaps and see it for what it is: an attack on instances like dbzer0, Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net, as well as the ideologies of those instances, those generally being anarchism and Marxism-Leninism. Their position is that these are dominating flaws of specific instances, not merely a random type of person with an unspecified level of influence.

it's called paraphrasing, you wanted to make it very clear that you're one of the good ones for the liberals, as opposed to tankies who are the bad ones. i don't think i misrepresented you.

the term is literally a left facing pejorative the way it's used, especially how you were using it.

In Marxist analysis, as capitalism goes on, capital accumulates, centralizes, and coalesces. The rate of profit also has a tendency to fall as time goes on, and automation and productivity raise the organic composition of capital. This has a socializing impact on how production and distribution is organized, while leaving appropriation of the surplus in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to crisis. Accelerating the growth of capital therefore makes this crisis happen sooner.

The reason this is a terrible strategy is because the collapse of capitalism does not guarantee socialism. For that, you need a revolutionary party that can educate and guide the whole of the working class towards revolution, otherwise it just collapses into barbarism. Climate change cannot wait for capitalism to collapse on its own either. As the better stewards of accumulation, the DNC provides a more stable base for capitalism to progress smoothly and hit crisis faster.

I'm also curious about evidence for this, if you have it. It seems self-evident to me (and also irrelevant tbh), but it'd be nice to know/have anyway

yes i get that you're a social democrat, you already made that clear. you goals are to stay entirely within capitalism with a handful of minor reforms to attempt to manage capital rather than actually challenge it.

what's your plan for when capital pushes back against your reforms? i don't think your framework has an answer outside of wishful thinking.

What do you commit to? So far I’m not sure.

i vote in every fucking primary, municipal election and offyear election. i don't participate in electoral campaigns because it's a waste of energy. my organizing work is with antiwar groups and other anarchists making sure people in my city have food.

Hasan counts, IMO. He supports China, Cuba, etc. but focuses more on welfare capitalism. He gets called a tankie semi-frequently.

Can you give some examples?

In a single word, "fringe." Marxism-Leninism isn't just the most historically relevant branch of Marxism, it's also the most important in the modern era. It isn't a "false equivalency," I never made the claim that all Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, just that much of peoples critiques of Marxism-Leninism are more accurately critiques of Marxism itself, Lenin's work not being relevant in that particular critique.

Genuine internationalism stems from equal footing and the right to self-determination of all communities of people, or all "nations." To quote the relevant bit from Stalin, "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture." When I say that the self-determination of all nations is critical for internationalism, I mean this in a similar reason for why I support the working class. I am not opposed to the individuals within them, it's a recognition of the struggle for national liberation, such as the ongoing struggle for self-determination in Palestine.

In Marxist philosophy, there are primary and secondary contradictions. Combatting secondary contradictions that rest on the primary contradiction also combats the primary contradiction. The struggle for national liberation is like the struggle for women's liberation, for queer liberation: secondary contradictions that rest upon the primary contradiction of class struggle. They are all inter-linked, and as such when we fight for self-determination against colonialism, we also fight capitalism at the same time. Nationalism switches from being progressive to being reactionary when it is used to justify support for colonizers and imperialists.

I call myself a Marxist-Leninist because I am an internationalist, a follower of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Stalin did not invent the national question, he did work on it that Lenin acknowledged as correct, and whose views they sharpened against each other. The nation was not invented by Stalin, it was understood by Marx in his support of Ireland and Poland against colonialism, refined by Lenin in his support for self-determination of all peoples, and further codified and studied by Stalin, who was a national minority within the Russian Empire himself as a Georgian.

So, in essense, Stalin did not invent anything new, he merely extended and theorized upon Lenin's advancements. It is for the same reason that we do not always tack on any individual theorist as an "-ism," for example Marxist-Leninists appreciate Mao's contributions, but do not believe them to represent a universal or new advancement upon Marxism-Leninism.

You appear to be trying to claim that OP is portraying everyone who says ‘both sides are the same’ as tankies

he is tho

in the same way that ‘liberal’ doesn’t actually mean ‘everyone who votes Democrat’.

yeah plenty of liberals are also republicans

"Tankie", as used in online discourse, just means "person to my political left making an argument I can't refute".

if they're pro capitalist it's just describing their position, sorry that the term offends you

What a pain in the neck

Oh gee, why would I take you joking about me being like Charlie Kirk and being a "pain in the neck" any other way?

it's a heavily sanctioned garrison state that emerged from a brutal colonial occupation and a war that killed a third of the population.

i dont particularly care for any states, but i have special contempt for the US. that makes it hard to share in the fearmongering about the US's designated enemies on the other side of the planet from where i live.

The point of trying to bring theory to people isn't to get a cheap gotcha, it's to try to bring the general level of political education of people up, from the base level of general instinct to an informed and scientific approach to social change. If someone is being condescending in their approach, then they are doing it wrong.

I'm not sure why you're lying about me claiming to speak for the entire left, I claimed the opposite. I speak for myself, and can at minimum self-identify as a Marxist-Leninist.

You're still lying about my point. I did not say voting hurts organizing. I said funneling people into voting as their primary mechanism for change hurts organizing. The act of voting does not harm, the funneling people into that as a primary means of engaging pollitically does. The study affirms this, by stating that legitimizing the system has a negative correlation with organizing against it.

my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.

Not one bit did I say "voting hurts organizing." This is a lie.