i’m NOT even sure if this is the right community for me to post this on. that said, i got banned from hexbear (and now banned from posting stuff on !slop@hexbear.net from this lemmy instance) for “history of repeating us state department talking points, antisocialism and zionism” as well as possible “fedposting”.

i DON’T usually complain about hexbear, but part is me’s glad i got banned from hexbear - of course that site is mostly run by tankies.

of course you DON’T have to be a tankie to support marxism-leninism - i asked this question here, and some people said ‘you DON’T have to support stalin to support ml’.

i think that the ussr would’ve been better off today if the ussr continued to led by a troika after lenin’s death in 1924, but who am i to judge? i prefer lemmy.ml (another lemmy instance).

i apologize to any hexbear people reading this, and i’m sorry i called you tankies. seriously!

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    6·
    14 hours ago

    1. Just say communist, Marxist, etc. You don’t need to use a pejorative.

    2. Actually Existing Socialism. Countries like the former USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

    3. You have a contradictory hodge-podge of random ideologies thrown together. You need to focus less on describing what you think is good, and do more study and research before thinking you have the solutions. There’s a reason not a single party on Earth conforms to your positions even slightly.

    4. A helpful way to avoid parroting dogma is to just not speak on a subject until you’ve investigated it thoroughly, or otherwise can make an educated guess based on prior study.

    5. The News Mega is pinned on the site, hexbear.net. The general site is just Hexbear.net

    6. Lemmygrad is almost entirely Marxist-Leninists. You can do a good deal of learning there, but you’ll probably find it even more ideologically consistent than Hexbear.

    7. Having a leader does not mean that leader touches everything under them, they just steer general policy. The USSR was run democratically. Having multiple competing political parties is a liberal notion of democracy that breaks up consensus building and devolves into factionalism. It’s useful for maintaining capitalism, but terrible for running a democratic country while under siege.

    • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      1·
      12 hours ago
      1. i think ‘marxinist’ sounds a bit good, but people would probably think ‘you’re saying ‘marxism’ wrong!’
      2. sure aes may have its faults, but i think vietnam and laos are my favorite examples of aes.
      3. i can boil down my socialist views to simply democratic socialism (or ‘centrist marxism’ (according to leftvalues)).
      4. are there any ways to learn about marxism without losing focus? sure, i like reading, but i DON’T wanna lose focus after a few sentences in. i prefer videos.
      5. okay
      6. okay
      7. is there a form of communism that claims liberal democracy under the socialist spectrum (as in multiple like-minded parties from across the socialist spectrum from communism to mutualism)? i think council communism and eurocommunism both come into mind.
      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        3·
        10 hours ago

        1. I don’t see the advantage of saying “Marxinist.”

        2. Sure, the point is to not demonize or slander AES.

        3. The LeftValues test is just a guess at what you are, not a description or perscription. All socialism is democratic.

        4. Videos generally aren’t going to get you where you need to be with theory.

        5. Socialist democracy tends to focus on unity over competing partied trying to undermine each other, which is why most socialist states are unitary. In the context of imperialist siege, competition becomes a vector for destabilization.

        • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          1·
          10 hours ago
          1. i understand - “marxinist” is a bit weird, and again, some people would probably say ‘you’re saying ‘marxist’ all wrong!’
          2. i agree
          3. what about the one-party part of aes (china and the dprk has multiple political parties, but they’re in a socialist coalition)
          4. what about audiobooks?
          5. what about a coalition of like-minded socialist parties (like consisting of a council communist party, a social democratic party, a liberal socialist party, a De Leonist party and a mutualist party)?
          6. can a country be socialist AND federal (like the ussr or yugoslavia)?
          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            4·
            10 hours ago

            I still don’t see the advantage of “Marxinist.” Just say communist.

            One-party states are fine if the party is representative of the working classes, serves the people, and does a good job.

            Audiobooks are good, I don’t use them but others swear by them.

            The idea of competing types of socialist parties in a liberal structure doesn’t work in practice. These are fundamentally different systems both from each other and from liberal systems.

            Federations can be socialist, there’s a difference between segmentation and competition.

            • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              1·
              8 hours ago

              can you explain how there are multiple political parties in a coalition in some aes countries?

              ie: china has minor parties that run with the ruling party, working under a ‘united front’ - they call these parties ‘democratic parties’:

              1. the communist party of china (the main party)
              2. left-kuomintang (left-wing nationalism - the three principles of the people in a socialist perspective)
              3. china democratic league (originally big-tent centrists, now supports socialism - consisting of mostly mid-to-senior-level intellectuals - i’d call it the ‘tech party’)
              4. china national democratic construction association (supports socialism, consisting of entrepeneurs and economic experts - i’d call it the ‘economy party’)
              5. china association for promoting democracy (supports socialism, consisting of high-level intellectuals - i’d call it the ‘cultural party’)
              6. chinese peasants’ and workers’ democratic party (founded by left-wing members of the kuomintang, supports socialism - consisting of medicine experts - i’d call it the ‘health party’)
              7. china zhi gong party (originally multi-party federalists, now supports socialism - consisting of overseas Chinese people who just came back, as well as people with overseas connections - i’d call it the ‘returning expat party’)
              8. jiusan society (supports socialism, consistings of mid-to-high-level intellectuals - i’d call it the ‘education party’)
              9. taiwan democratic self-goverance league (founded by surviving members of the taiwanese communist party, supports socialism - consisting of advocates for Chinese unification between the mainland and the island of taiwan and such)

              the dprk meanwhile has a few parties in the now-defunct ‘united democratic fatherland front’ coalition (dissolved back in 2024 because kim jong-un changed his mind on korean reunification):

              1. the workers’ party of korea (the main party, juche fanatics)
              2. the korean social democratic party (the social democrats - they wanted the country to be a bit more moderate)
              3. the chondoist chongu party (the pantheist ‘cheondoist’ socialists - pretty self-explanatory)
              4. chongryon (representing the zainichi koreans)
              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                1·
                22 minutes ago

                China has a cooperative party system with the CPC being the main governing body. It’s different from a liberal system, and further these extra parties are more like interest groups. Their focus is on unity, not on competing with the CPC.

                As for the DPRK, it pretty much has full WPK control. The other parties aren’t genuinely competing with the WPK, more trying to tilt it in a different direction.

                No socialist country really has these intense liberal elections with competing interests.