I saw a post that talked about racism towards people and when I talked about it the response I got was very heated and a person even called lemmy.world a community of ‘hitlerites’

I have been around for a week or so and this is my first time seeing such explicit vulgar reaction towards another community, is this a one-off or should I block hexbear?

  • Sootius@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Anarchists are explicitly welcome, so authoritarianism is definitely not a requirement. And what “alternative facts”?

    • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Things like the denial of the tiananmen square massacre or claiming that North Korea is a free and prosperous nation, both of which I have seen with my own two eyes on hexbear.

      While I am not an anarchist, generally I am cool with them. Who I am not cool with are Marxist-Leninists, which are authoritarian.

      From the wikipedia article on Marxist-Leninists:

      In the words of historians Silvio Pons and Robert Service, elections are “generally not competitive, with voters having no choice or only a strictly limited choice”. Generally, when alternative candidates have been allowed to stand for election, they have not been allowed to promote very different political views.

      • The people of the soviet union, at least as far as Pat Sloan experienced in ~1937, had the most limited choice: any person

          I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship is no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organization was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?
          As far as the elections in the villages were concerned, these took place at open village meetings, all peasants of voting age, other than those who employed labour, having the right to vote and to stand for election. As in the towns, any organization or individual could put forward candidates, anyone could ask the candidate questions, and anybody could support or oppose the candidature. It is usual for the Communist Party to put forward a candidate, trade unions and other organizations can also do so, and there is nothing to prevent the Party’s candidate from not being elected, if he has not sufficient prestige among the voters.

        Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy: Chapter XIII

        • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Several things in there I dislike:

          Raising hands does not seem like an accurate way vote. Peasants who employed labor couldn’t vote. People could vote even if they weren’t citizens. No mention of being able to vote for non-communists. There are trade-unions and other candidates but it doesn’t mention their political alignment

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 hours ago

            To defend non-citizens voting, the Soviets valued labor over nationalism and anyone could vote despite not being citizens if they worked there. Kinda like if the US allowed immigrants to vote who weren’t yet citizens.

            Trade Unions were often independent as well. Really, the book itself is fascinating.

            • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I support immigration but allowing non-citizens to vote seems like an easy way for foreign governments to swing elections in their favor.

              Yes, I get that the trade unions were their own thing but that doesn’t mean they can’t also be communist.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Again, the Soviets valued labor and the working class over all else. Chalk that up to them being naiive or whatnot, but that was the reasoning. Foreign governments were anti-Communist, not supporting the Socialist system, so if anything that points towards legitimacy.

                As for the Trade Unions, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying you want them to not be allowed to be Communist? Genuinely confused here, I don’t know what your point is.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 hours ago

                    Generally yes, though she doesn’t seem to be one of the endlessly bad-faith types, just a bit stuck with Red Scare notions.

                • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  So I’m cool with socialism, and I consider myself to be socialist, but I don’t think communism and socialism are the same thing. I believe that communist countries have a communist system, not a socialist system. If they did have a socialist system, then they’d be socialists, not communists.

                  And what I’m saying about the trade unions is that I’m not against the existence of communist trade unions but I’d like there to be trade unions of other political ideologies as well, such as socialist ones, anarchist ones, etc.

                  I’d like to exist in a world where borders don’t matter and there aren’t any foreign governments trying to sabotage each other, but that’s not the state of reality today and idk if it will ever be, but I base my position on non-citizens being unable to vote based on the reality of what the world is today and if the world changes, then I’ll probably change my position as well, but I don’t see change like that happening in my lifetime.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 hours ago

                    Okay, I’m going to clarify some things here. For reference, I am a Marxist, particularly a Marxist-Leninist. I used to consder myself more of an Anarchist, but reading more Marxist theory and history books generally led me towards Marxism-Leninism. As such, the explanations I am going to give in a second are from that perspective, a Marxist that at one point considered themselves to be an Anarchist.

                    All Communists are, first and foremost, Socialists. Socialism is categorized by an economic system where public ownership and planning is primary and thus dominant over markets. Communism refers to a post-Socialist economic system where all property has been collectivized in a world Socialist republic, the famous “Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society.” When I reference the ideology of AES states, I reference Marxism or Communism or a specific strain of Marxism, but when I reference the economic model of an AES state, it changes.

                    For example, the PRC is Marxist-Leninist, but practices “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” which appears as a form of a “Socialist Market Economy.” This economic model looks different from, say, Cuba, even though both are guided by Marxism-Leninism and working towards Communism.

                    There are other forms of Socialism, however in the grand historical and theoretical context the overwhelming majority fall into the broad categories of Marxism and Anarchism.

                    Does this all make sense so far? If you’re interested, I wrote an introductory Marxist reading list, the first section in particular is short and very helpful for just being familiar with general terminology and goals.