169
Any tips for a new user?
(lemm.ee)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
169 points (96.2% liked)
Asklemmy
47134 readers
856 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
You have to curate your feed yourself. Personally I use the all feed and block what I don't like because I enjoy seeing new communities. I also recommend the jerboa app if you have an android, its free, open-source, made by lemmy devs, and doesn't have ads.
Also many of us are communists or anarchists so prepare for political takes you aren't used to.
Right on lol. I’m a socialist leaning democratic socialist but I can appreciate that communism gets a bad rap—and the current US administration is radicalizing me more than ever, so I’m happy to get pulled further to the dark side.
Since you did ask, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list after the US election in the hopes of helping those increasingly radicalized along their political journeys! I also wrote a post on how to determine if an overall system is Capitalist or Socialist, from a Marxist perspective.
As a side-note, Socialism is generally seen by Marxists as the intermediate stage between Capitalism and Communism, with Communism as a fully publicly owned, global democratic economy with thorough planning, and Socialism as a society where Private ownership has become subservient to the public sector and now Public ownership is the principle aspect, which is the method of getting to Communism. No country has achieved Communism, which must be global, but many have achieved Socialism.
A bit on "Democratic Socialism," and how it differs from Marxism-Leninism:
Democratic Socialism usually can refer to either something like the Nordic Countries, which would technically better fit the term "Social Democracy* as private ownership of Capital is the principle aspect of their economies, or as Socialism achieved through electoral means, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
I say "principle" as no system is "pure," every country has a public and private sector, but the public sector in China and Cuba, for example, has far more power than the Private through having firm control of large firms and key industry, while in the Nordics the public sector is in support of the private. The Nordics also rely on international exploitation in order to fund their safety nets, meaning it isn't a system that could be adopted by just anyone with the same results, it requires winners and losers.
As for how it compares to Marxism-Leninism:
Democratic Socialists usually wish to achieve Socialism through elections, while MLs are revolutionary. Just like you can't just ask a billionaire to give you their money, MLs don't believe you can simply ask them to implement a system that dramatically weakens and eventually erases their power when they control the State.
Democratic Socialism is generally a far less defined, while Marxism-Leninism has a rich history of testing theory to practice, and changing over time. This is because Marxism-Leninism is almost always going to be the underlying ideology of any country deemed "Communist," such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, former USSR, and more. This means MLs are usually more in agreement than disagreement with each other.
And that's enough to go off of, I think! Let me know if you habe any questions, though the reading list is my recommendation for a good place to start. It even has audiobooks for most of the listed works as alternatives, as well as links to epubs or pdfs.
I appreciate the breakdown. I’ll crack into the reading material tomorrow and get back to you. Thanks!
No problem, feel free to leave feedback! And don't worry about getting back in any soon time period, take your time with it and get out of it what you want to. This isn't homework, you're not joining a Communist Party by reading anything on the list, haha.
Now, I will have considered it a fantastic success if it leads you more down that path, of course, but even reading the first section or two so you can get a better idea of what Communists here are talking about and why will already be a big benefit for yourself and a point of pride for myself.
Haha. No I’ve actually been genuinely interested in learning more about this for a little while now. I think this is the time for radicalization, if there ever was one. Still trying to figure out what that looks like for me personally. Thanks again for the resources—and I welcome any others, across any medium.
Not to toot my own horn, but I saw the recent election results as a good opportunity for further outreach, which is why the list is in the format it is, such as frontloading with Parenti's work, who directly is speaking to a US-based audience and can help tackle Red Scare mythos that permeate the western Left.
Contrary to what anticommunists will have you believe, Communists don't believe all instances of AES (Actually Existing Socialism) are perfect or free of struggle, but instead that we can learn from their successes and their failures, as many of their problems will be faced by any Socialist country, and many of their successes can be replicated or improved.
As yet another recommendation, for if you aren't feeling theory but instead want general history, I'm a big fan of Blowback, a very well-produced and thoroughly researched podcast that goes over the US Empire's involvement with various wars and conflicts over the Cold War and until today. It manages to be funny at times, heartbreaking at others, but frequently it's bittersweet or even hopeful, such as in the Cuban season. Lots of interviews with experts from the countries they talk about and various academics as well.
It's great that you want to learn more, by the way!
500 word mini-essay on demsoc vs socdem inbound. ETA in 3... 2...
I went over 500 I think...
1…
Definitely this. Lemmy isn't that big, so it pays to browse all. Just block any topic you don't like. I had to block a lot of furry and meme communities because they don't interest me.
And lemmy.ml communities are often managed by pro-communists and they don’t like if you don’t trash talk capitalism as much as they want you to
That’s a sad part of Lemmy
Oh yes, Lemmy opposing the far-right, so evil and awful.
Time to make accounts in lemmy.ml
I don't think they are that dogmatic too.
Like, they seem to support China lead by a Socialist/Communist/Marxist political leadership, that declares its aim as transitioning into socialism by 2050 or so.
This is absolutely nitpicking, but China is already Socialist, and considers itself as such. They have a "stages" theory of Socialism itself, 2050 is for the next stage in Socialism. They are Socialist becuse Public Ownership is principle in their economy, ie large firns and key industries are state owned and controlled, while smaller and less critical industries are privately owned. A rubber factory has power over the rubber ball factory, to give a quick example.
They often leave a dogmatic impression when someone says something which is completely normal to hear and say in (for example) the USA, but is unknowingly bigoted or ignorant misinformation. The .ml admins have no time for that and I think its unfortunate that there's little attempt at linking them to resourced that explain why their post was prejudiced, because it's usually not intentional or heartless.
One can absolutely critisise China there and you'll probably end up banned if you aren't critical of the Russian Federation. I've made posts on Lemmygrad challenging their notion of China's form of worker democracy. But certain popular critiques are just bigoted or unfounded propaganda which the admins will ban people for, so it comes off as just shutting down opposing viewpoints. And that's really unfortunate.
Aah.
Is there something like the automod feature in reddit?
That would be solution to common misconceptions, right?
Good idea. I have seen some instances using mod-privileged bots for automating some tasks, like making weekly posts in communities, but I don't think I've seen an auto-moderation bot yet.
I personally think having pre-filled ban reasons is a great moderation tool which would be useful for Lemmy.
Said China doesn’t respect human rights because they’re doing a Uyghurs genocide, got banned from !memes@lemmy.ml
Yea, China #1, we love that they spy on their citizens, and don't have freedom of speech
In the comment that got removed and got you temporarily banned, you just said "China is a place where human rights aren't respected," nothing about the Uyghur people or how the PRC treats them.
Either way, I recommend you read the UN investigation report and China's response, both linked here.
As for spying on citizens, Western countries are just as, if not more guilty, of doing as such. Freedom of Speech doesn't truly exist in the West either, when corporations dominate the media and the US State Department funds propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia in order to drum up hostility towards its geopolitical rivals. "Freedom of Speech" is more often a way to allow corporations unlimited control of speech through flooding the information space with information they want you to see. True Freedom of Speech would require placing restrictions on the power of lobbyists and corporations to dominate.
There's a lot that can be legitimately criticized about the PRC, of course, but a lot of the common "criticism" tends to be either distorted or exaggerated, or from holding China to a higher standard than other countries, which makes genuine debate more difficult to find.
I got temporarily banned for a month indeed, but what does that change? Not a lot in my opinion. I won't be going back anyways.
Why do I need to explain my reasoning when it's pretty well known that China isn't the best place to live for human rights? On the other hand, I get banned with no explanation, apart from a "Don't be rude" rule, like what??
Companies censoring speech isn't the same as a country censoring speech. As far as I'm concerned we still have some sort of freedom of press. Btw, where did I say the USA was perfect? I would put it in the bad countries for human rights due to how they treat non-US people (you probably know the many wars/conflicts they've been into and how they feel like they have every rights on other territories like how Isreal was created, or that they can kill civilians in military operations).
Surely the political opponents in Hong Kong are fine and not persecuted as well.
From the little I've read about the report you sent, which I don't have the time to read rn, but might later, I saw multiple things like acts of "disruption of social order" can be considered as terrorist activity. We know that in countries with strong control of the government like China, "terrorism" is often used to justify repression against political opponents. It's even stated in the report (didn't saw that it was as I was writing this)
What I'm reading is a lot of bad things. The report is rather incriminating.
It changes the nature of the ban, being given a slap on the wrist vs being permanently shut out, like I have been for calling out the Democrat's complicity in the genocide of Palestinians on .world comms, or giving a nuanced take on what Socialism should be considered on a comm moderated by PugJesus.
Either way, you need to explain because anti-China views are only really common in Europe and the US/Canada, Australia, and their allies like Japan. Pro-Chinese views, and views of a good nature on their Human Rights, are more common among people globally. Why does this discrepancy exist? Because western countries are not given free reign to plunder China economically like they do elsewhere, and thus manufacture outrage paid for by the US State Department.
It isn't about calling the US perfect, it's about weighing problems in China specifically more than problems elsewhere. China is not perfect, but at the same time it is better than contemporary powers.
As for speech censoring, the speech gets censored, why does it matter more to you that companies be able to do so?
As for HK, about 3/4s of the population want integration with the PRC, with some wishing more autonomy but very few wanting a hard break.
To return to the issue of Uyghur sepparatism, there is a well-documented history of violence in the region, such as the 2009 Urumqi Riots. There was factually a problem. We can critique the Chinese response, but this was a real problem China addressed with reeducation camps. Claims that these camps are for genocidal reasons aren't backed up by UN investigation, though, such claims come exclusively from Christian Nationalist and US and UK government-funded propagandist Adrian Zenz, who believes China is the antichrist and it is his mission from God to condemn them.
Again, we can absolutely have real critique of China, but blindly repeating claims with dubious origins and generally maintaining a distrust of the Chinese on the basis of having a strong Public Sector is not real critique, hence why I wanted you to look at the UN report. This is a similar situation to the Iraqi UN Weapons Inspectors, who never found WMD but the US lied and invaded anyways. Real events are distorted so the US can pressure into economic capitulation, and even justify invasion, and then apologize if ever called out later for it.
So you spouted the standard route "China bad" takes.
Sure. China bad, USA bad, Russia bad. So? Doesn't make my criticism invalid, nor misinformation.
There's just a biased moderation that censors people that have strong takes against some countries.
It's the same tedious thought terminating cliches that western chauvinists are pre-progammed to repeat. Many of them are misinformation, (like the "Uyghur genocide" narrative), but most of them don't even have enough substance to even get to that level.
Uyghur genocide is misinformation? 🤦
Good old genocide denying.
ofc they're here on their own will, and definitely not being brainwashed and forced to work. all good
We do indeed deny long-debunked “Uyghur genocide” bullshit.
.
If you’re into political censorship and echo chambers, good for you. I value free speech, debates with diverse opinions
Going against the standard western viewpoint with respect to China is not an opinion that can be formed in a vacuum, so it isn't going to be a real echo chamber. If you want to actually debate, I think Lemmy.ml is one of the better places on Lemmy to do so, assuming you aren't just saying "China bad." Do you have an example of an instance that is better for genuine, high-effort debate surrounding China?
any opinion or viewpoint can be an echo chamber
Saying terrorism is bad is a standard viewpoint, but people that are into it are often in a complete echo chamber
An echo chamber is a deliberate shutting out of opposing viewpoints. This is possible in areas where an ideology represents the status quo of an area, like a pro-US website in the US, but antagonistic views towards the status quo cannot divorce their context from that status quo.
I can be a Marxist-Leninist, but cannot avoid seeing mainstream pro-US media, it's something I have to engage with to live my life in the US. On the contrary, it is very easy for a USian to completely shut out all interactions with Marxist-Leninists.
How do you feel about Stalin?
Overall positive.
I've heard that he supported the development of India. As an Indian, positive view here.
After joining lemmy, seeing arguments about him, got to know that he faced personal losses too, with his son, a soldier in the WW2, dying in a Nazi concentration camp as a PoW.
Have read that there were purges of officials and repression in fear of Nazi and other spies and that excesses did happen under his govt.
But considering how they were able to reduce poverty and were able to industrialise their nation, making them able to fight the Nazis, I see them overall positively.
Have heard about the famine too. But not sure if it was purposeful like how Churchill took away foodgrains from Bengal. So negative view on it, but not sure how to see it. Whether it is intentional or natural cause or inefficiency.
How do you feel about Hitler?
Thurston and J Arch Getty have good books on Stalin. They're both pretty well respected historians, so you can read stuff about the famine from their books. It's not a pretty picture. Also, which part of India, if you don't mind?
Famines are never going to be pretty, right?
I have seen pictures online of the Bengal and Mangalore famines that India suffered under British rule.
My doubt on it is how much of it is natural and how much is intentional.
What do those historians say about that?
I have seen people arguing and discussing about it online, with everything ranging from intentional punishment to bureaucratic inefficiency to feudal farmlords burning their produce and animals during the famine to how famines were common in the region until the 1950's and also mentions of grain export
Southern India
Are you Indian too? Which part?
Dude, I know. I am an Indian too, and a socialist. Getty and Thurston definitely aren't cold war propagandists. It is Robert Conquest, Anne Applebaum and more recently, Timothy Snyder who portray the famine as an intentional genocide done by evil Soviets. Getty and Thurston, especially Thurston was actually notorious for taking a more pro-Soviet stance. Wheatcroft and Davies did important work showing that the famine was caused by a combination of bad harvest and poor planning. As far as I am aware, the popular genocide/deliberate starvation line is not the historical consensus and has not been for some time after the opening of Soviet archives. Even liberal historians like Fitzpatrick and Krotkin debunk the many capitalist lies about the famine. People discussing it online generally have a very strange assortment of sources - from Snyder's terrible book 'Bloodlands' to obsolete books like Tottle's 'Fraud, Famine and Fascism' which was written before the opening of Soviet archives. r/AskHistorians is a good source for finding both Marxist and liberal sources, and it generally avoids neoconservatives like Conquest.
I am from the South too but am Marathi.
Aah. Sorry.
I was a bit wary since I got banned in a .world community when I shared similar pov's. I think there are some who equate Stalin to Hitler, so was trying to avoid needless fights on that.
I'm in the KL state.
Understandable. .world is generally Eurocentric or US-centric. I stay away from most political comms there for my own sanity.
Lucky you. I live in southern Sanghiland, Karnataka.
And other ones of us are just idiots.
One of us!