I can post almost anything without any restrictions, right? The last rule seems to be not to promote CCP, USSR, and DPRK. But didn't the USSR disappear long ago? And if that's the case, why doesn't the rule say not to promote any communist party or not to promote Marx and Leninism?🤔
@jiangnan
This term is really about the promotion of authoritarianism generally. This is a community for anti-authoritarians, not people who are fans of dictatorships. Those kinds of people - sometimes called "tankies" or "campists" - also tend to be toxic and abusive to others, and so cause moderation problems. Liberation means liberation from the state!
@ophiocephalic While the revolutions led by Marxist-Leninist parties have been fraught with so many regrets and problems, I believe they were at least capable of defeating foreign enemies and achieving long-term development. Although degeneration was inevitable, the more idealistic anarchist movement indeed failed to make any significant long-term achievements in establishing political power through revolutionary uprisings or resisting foreign enemies. (Sigh)
@ophiocephalic The historical process of civilisation is still so difficult that it often stagnates, and sometimes it moves forward and then moves backwards in circles.
@jiangnan
Yes, well, in any case, Kolektiva's terms of use are about discouraging authoritarians and campists from joining, and providing a mechanism for banning them when they make trouble. Make of that what you will and use your best judgement
@ophiocephalic But do you think the long list I sent earlier makes sense?
@jiangnan
Let's just say I don't think it's a moderation problem. People here do discuss the liberatory aspirations of Marxism, and its failures. The point of the anti-authoritarian terms are to curtail toxic tankies and prevent the server from being exploited by state-sponsored influence operations
@ophiocephalic Just ignore my rambling.
@ophiocephalic I hope my reply doesn't upset you, comrade senior.
@ophiocephalic A user on the Chinese social media platform Littleredbook commented: 'This involves many issues from the second half of the 20th century. Based on my own understanding and historical perception, I believe the failure of the socialist camp was due to the contradiction between class consciousness and class existence, that is, how to build socialist consciousness and eliminate other pre-modern elements on the basis of capital. Both China and the Soviet Union failed in this area. The emergence of the so-called new privileged class is only the final result, and unfortunately, it is also related to the international situation. When surrounded by strong enemies, you cannot relax and die. The Country machine can strengthen, but its strengthening will lead to bureaucracy. The countless histories in the 20th century are all about dying now or later. Our game is on the right track, but the execution is really a mess...'
@ophiocephalic Comrade Bakunin once questioned Comrade Marx: If a single party leads the proletarian revolution, then after the revolution, some of the proletariat will lead others. If the bureaucracy steps down, then those bureaucrats will become the new rulers, leading to new class oppression.
@ophiocephalic Each has its own problems, but Lenin's vanguard party was indeed successful (of course, they, the Bolsheviks, also eliminated the Mensheviks, Social Democrats, and Anarchists) but this success led to the revolution and success of Marxist-Leninist socialism around the world (the real success is Yugoslavia, China, North Korea, and Cuba, where success is not about being particularly good at internal affairs, but about survival and independence). But after all, there are political parties and government bureaucrats. Political parties lead the revolution, and the revolution succeeds. Then, because of the pressure of external enemies, the bureaucrats have room to develop. Later, the bureaucrats will definitely become corrupt. The first generation of revolutionaries is still good. After the second and third generations, such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev, these representatives of revisionism, in short, they will eventually become bureaucratic ruling groups and new bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of North Korea. There are various problems. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, and the puppet regimes supported by the Soviet Union have disappeared. North Korea, which used to get rich through aid, has become more dictatorial under the leadership of Kim Jong Il. Although it is now somewhat better, my point is that it is not really good. Those years were really bad, but it is not the 'Stone Age'. There were many problems later, but the benefits of the previous reform, such as communes, are now many fair systems, and now effective anti-corruption, so at least there is no better now...
