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?

  • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    01·
    1 year ago

    I really don’t think they are a left-unity instance considering that they get very upset and unpleasant to talk to if you don’t support authoritarianism or their alternative “facts.”

    Like I’m cool with all sorts of different leftist viewpoints and I think it’s necessary that we support each other, but I draw the line at authoritarianism and rewriting history.

    • Sootius@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

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

      • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        1 year 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.

        • Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself]@lemmy.ml
          1·
          1 year ago
          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.zoneEnglish
            01·
            1 year 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
              1·
              1 year 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.zoneEnglish
                01·
                1 year 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
                  1·
                  1 year 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.

                  • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                    01·
                    1 year 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.

                • Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself]@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  It says that anyone could propose a candidate, and that the person elected in that specific election wasn’t part of the [Communist] Party, making it somewhat likely they weren’t a communist.

                  But a better question, is why is it important that they can vote for non-communists? What else should they vote for? Fascists? Liberals that wish to destroy the Soviet system and institute capitalism, thereby making the lives of the vast majority of people worse? Chapter XVII goes over this to some extent, but I of course do recommend reading the entire book.