Called what?
Sure is great to cherry pick and remove any and all context! All I did was add context to the nonsense you spouted.
Lemmy.world has earned itself a pretty bad reputation, although there are instances that are worse. They keep things clean enough to not get defederated, but you're not really in good company on there.
A few corrections regarding your misconceptions of Communist theory, for anyone scrolling by but unfamiliar with Marxism:
-
Marxists advocate for revolution, because Capitalism cannot simply be voted out. Given that following Marxist analysis to its correct conclusions necessitates transitioning to Socialism, this can be seen as a "call to violence." Yes, it is, but out of necessity. Marxists don't advocate simply massacring everyone of slightly different beliefs, rather, Marxists are not Blanquists and thus believe revolution is only possible with mass, popular support.
-
The Marxist conception of a State is a tool of class oppression, not all instances of government. Rather, Marxists advocate for working towards full Public Ownership of Capital and Central Planning by the government. When Marxists say they believe the State will wither away, they mean eventually all property will be folded into the public sector and thus the concept of "classes" will cease to exist as well, gradually as property is folded into the public sector to the degree to which markets have formed Big Industry and Monopolist Syndicates. From Engels:
"When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away."
The point about you knowing these people online or in person was secondary to my point about organizing. Individual people considering themselves Communists but unaffiliated with an org vere frequently misunderstand theory, develop strange and contradictory stances, and otherwise fail to bounce their ideas off of actual, practicing Communists who daily test their theory and refine it. That's why "Party Lines" exist. These "Party Lines" generally form around specific tendencies within Marxism, because there do exist right and wrong answers when faced with material reality and consistent frameworks of analysis. No, a Communist shouldn't automatically support anything, they should test their theory and keep what works and toss what doesn't. The fact that the overwhelming majority of actual practicing Communists do support the PRC and USSR does not mean they are doing so thoughtlessly. Blackshirts and Reds is a good book.
The most major tendency of Marxism is Marxism-Leninism, as it has had the most direct proof of validity and consistency with theory and practice. ML organizations have had numerous successful revolutions, and most AES states follow an ML line. As such, the vast majority of Communists worldwide support the PRC and USSR.
Maoists, generally, reject Deng's reforms that returned the PRC to a more traditional Marxist understanding of economics, and see him as a right-deviationist. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, a more fringe ideology popularized by the Communist Party of Peru, are less consistent on this matter.
The only other major current of Marxism is Trotskyism, which has produced no real revolutions and no real results. Trots are common in the Western Left because it fits with the West's overall anti-AES stance, and thus is easier to come to from a Western perspective. Outside of tiny pockets mostly in Latin America, Trots do not exist in the Global South. Trotskyism is a misanalysis of Socialism, Marxism, and Revolutionary Theory, and as such I was not including them as actual Communists. A good article is Trotskyists Don't Believe Anything.
Seeing as how you've admitted to a European point of view, everything coincides with what I've said. I have been speaking internationally, you've been speaking from a Trot-heavy Euro-centric point of view. Again, the Western Left's tendency to reject actual Socialism is more to do with compatability with existing world views. I recommend Jones Manoel's Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution.
Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin's theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn't that much of a theoretician, hence why it's Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You're free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.
Secondly, you have no idea what you're talking about if you're pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.
To be fair, it is a large coincidence. I get that it's wrong, but it's widespread because the dots are close enough the brain closes the gap by itself.
All 3 of those are highly political instances, though. Lemmy.world is overwhelmingly liberal and enforces that bias, and dbzer0 is mostly Anarchists. Sh.itjust.works genuinely leans towards fascism thanks to dedication to anticommunism and full support for the Military Industrial Complex and NATO.
Communists support the PRC as a Socialist state run by Marxist-Leninists, yes. No Communist supports the Russian Federation outright, however, only reserved, temporary, and highly critical support for Russia's anti-US Hegemony stance, which it only adopts for its own survival and not out of any moral superiority. No Communist "shills" for the Russian Federation.
The use of the word "tankie" these days is so over-used it has become synonymous with "left of the DNC." I've even seen Anarchists described as "tankies," it's getting ridiculous. Still, the word "tankie" is most often used by liberals against Marxists, though they won't admit to having an anti-Marxist bias, mostly because they think they agree with Marx generally but are unfamiliar with Marxist analysis.
Really, more people need to read theory before having an opinion on it to avoid speaking past each other. I wrote an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism if anyone wants to get a better understanding of Marxism.
A lot of its users are full fash Nazis, lots of NATO stans and the meanwhileongrad crowd are omnipresent. I've seen some users treat the instance more like Lemm.ee, as a tool for interacting with the rest of the fediverse, but you're right in that I immediately view anyone with a sh.itjust.works handle critically, and I'm in no way attempting to downplay the fascism from many users.
I'll edit my comment, though, it's important for others to know that the most overt right-wing fascists generally hang out there even if some users appear okay at a surface level.