Many people on lemmy.ml deeply respect and admire authoritarian governments and organizations.

Iran, China, North Korea, Soviet Union…

The West has many flaws. But our flaws are nothing compared to these guys.

Iran hangs homosexuals. Iran shot 30,000 people in less than than 2 weeks. The Soviet Union had to build a fucking Iron wall to prevent people from escaping. The Soviets lied about the Chernobyl nuclear explosion. China censors the internet. China wants to eliminate Islam. North Korea is a totalitarian hellscape. Watching anime is a crime.

Why is lemmy.ml so fascinated with authoritarians?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1410·
    2 days ago

    Because that’s Marcist-lenisim?

    Stalin named it, and he’s the one that set the definition of what that means.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism

    They don’t call it “Stalinism” because that’s way harder to defend.

    The ones you see online don’t even understand it, it literally requires supporting the left most party, but I’ve never seen a .ml account actually pushing for change thru the two party system, despite that literally being the first step:

    Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.[12]

    Most people online that say they’re “ML” don’t understand anything about it. They “learned” all they know from unsourced shitposts.

    Which is crazy, because this is the closest actual ML has ever come, after trump the Dems are most likely to gain so many seats, it’ll effectively be a one party government starting 2029.

    If we get a progressive Dem that will name a progressive DNC chair after becoming president, we’re fucking there. A one party government that’s genuinely for the proletariat.

    Any that claims to actually be ML and isn’t pushing for the DNC as hard as possible right now is lying about their self professed label, or never understood what it meant

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        24 hours ago

        It definitely caused a predictable reaction from .ml accounts

        Cognitive dissonance is pretty hard to deal with when people actually know what your ethos says.

        Give em time tho, some day they’ll be just as good at it as modern Christians or maga.

        • Tolc@lemmy.world
          32·
          24 hours ago

          Most people are fed up with your binary libshit politics, nobody cares about your manufactured culture war of lgbt vs christians. Keep living in your comfort zone which your govt is providing you by bombing schools in middle east.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            23 hours ago

            It’s weird how many 1 month old accounts have such serious issues with me…

            nobody cares about your manufactured culture war of lgbt vs christians.

            I’m wondering where that came from tho, that’s a new one

            • Tolc@lemmy.world
              12·
              23 hours ago

              I joined lemmy in 2023, one account was gone because it was on lemm.ee instance, another account I made on .zip was banned by admin because he didnt like some of my comments

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                23 hours ago

                nobody cares about your manufactured culture war of lgbt vs christians.

                I’m wondering where that came from tho, that’s a new one

                Can I get an answer?

                • Tolc@lemmy.world
                  22·
                  23 hours ago

                  What is your question? you are the type who believes fascism can be voted away and so support the establishment parties who manufacture culture wars.

    • mitram@sopuli.xyz
      24·
      2 days ago

      Disclaimer I’m not from the states.

      Believing the Democratic Party will in anyway abolish or even threaten capitalism is laughable. Even the most “left” (I don’t like the left/right axis) politicians in America are at most social-democrats and are more likely to actually enact social liberal policies. The democrats will never pose an actual threat to capitalism.

      The republicans are much more enamored with the status quo, but the democrats won’t resolve the structural contradictions the USA (and the west) faces.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        611·
        2 days ago

        Believing the Democratic Party will in anyway abolish or even threaten capitalism is laughable

        I’m not talking about “the party” I’m talking about the DNC…

        And the DNC is basically a dictatorship run under the chair, for four years they’re accountable to no one and for a long string of chairs that’s worked out horribly.

        When a Dem becomes president, they name a DNC chair. Meaning the last one was obvious a neoliberal appointed by Biden and thats why they didn’t let us have a primary.

        Right now the DNC chair is legitimately nonbiased. They won’t say shit till after the primary, and support everyone equally that goes to a general.

        That means, ML should be pushing really really hard for a progressive Dem in the presidential primary, one who they believe will appoint someone explicitly progressive as chair.

        Like, if you think the literal first step in ML invalidated the whole thing…

        I’m just explaining what their plan is, go to .ml and tell them that you believe their entire plan is fundamentally flawed and if they agree, ask them why they still say they’re ML.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      6·
      2 days ago

      The DNC is incapable of being a communist vanguard, the purpose of a vanguard party is to build up a reliable cadre of disciplined communists that can bring the working class struggle under one banner for the purposes of revolution. The idea that a liberal party dominated by capital could be confused for a vanguard is genuinely baffling, and the fact that you think Marxist-Leninists organizing in parties actually attempting to become a vanguard like PSL is baffling. I’ve never seen someone so confidently incorrect about Marxism-Leninism.

      Lenin’s central thesis to the vanguard model is written plainly in What is to be Done?

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      153·
      2 days ago

      God, the “actually, Lenin would have voted blue no matter who” takes are the most compelling evidence of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” I’ve ever seen.

      Lenin supported participation in bourgeois electoralism in a communist party, while also being extremely, constantly critical of social democratic reformists. The Democrats having one good election is not going to cause “the proletariat to seize power and establish a one-party communist state” unless you’ve been watching too much OAN.

      You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices.

      Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

      The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”.

      Lenin’s reason for participating in bourgeois electoralism was specifically to reach people who believed it was an adequate solution in order to persuade them to engage in mass action and outright revolution. This “Lenin was a reformist, actually” line is complete and total nonsense.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        19·
        2 days ago

        God, the “actually, Lenin would

        I think your confusion is you think Lenin had any say what so ever in what Stalin called “Marxism-Lenism”

        Which is a pretty foundational misunderstanding coming from a literal .ml account

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          71·
          2 days ago

          Stalin did not distort Marx or Lenin, he synthesized what Marx and Lenin theorized and practiced into a unified ideology and term. The reason it isn’t called “Stalinism” is because compared to Marx and Lenin, Stalin’s new contributions to Marxism-Leninism are like a puddle to their oceans, a tree to their forests.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          112·
          2 days ago

          Dear God, where did you even pick up these brainworms?

          Yes, I’m well aware that Stalin coined the term “Marxism-Leninism.” That doesn’t in any way mean that Lenin “had nothing to do with” the ideology, since his writings formed the basis of it.

          But let me get this straight: is your argument then that Stalin would’ve “voted blue no matter who?”

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            110·
            2 days ago

            It’s literally the first step of ML…

            If you’re so against that, have you thought of evaluating all the parts?

            Were you even aware that one of the core tenets of ML is voting for the lesser evil no matter what?

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              92·
              2 days ago

              If you’re so against that, have you thought of evaluating all the parts?

              Against what? Your completely absurd, blatantly ahistorical distortion of theory? Again, where did you even pick up these brainworms?

              Were you even aware that one of the core tenets of ML is voting for the lesser evil no matter what?

              No, because it isn’t. You’re just trolling, aren’t you? Did you read a single thing I quoted?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                39·
                2 days ago

                You quoted Lenin…

                Again, he had no say in “Marxism-Leninism”, because Stalin made it up using their names.

                You can’t defend ML by using quotes of Lenon or Marx, because those parts may or may not be in ML.

                You keep saying you understand that, but you clearly don’t or you wouldn’t be doing what you’re doing.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  83·
                  2 days ago

                  Lmao. So just to make this absolutely clear, in your worldview:

                  1. Lenin was an evil crazy revolutionary who only advocated participation in bourgeois elections for the purpose of guiding people towards revolutionary activity

                  2. Stalin, a moderate reformist, invented an entirely new ideology called Marxism-Leninism that had absolutely nothing to with either Marx or Lenin despite fighting side-by-side with Lenin during the revolution and extensively citing both of them.

                  “Stalin, the moderate reformist” is a new one for me so I feel like I gotta take a step back and clarify that that’s actually what you’re claiming here.

                  Edit:

                  1. Reforminsm and revolutionism. What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and reformist tactics?

                  Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense “every little helps,” that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.

                  “To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie,” says Lenin, “a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted, and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one’s enemies, to reject agreements and compromises with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies–is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, when making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, we were to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try others?” (see Vol. XXV, p. 210).

                  Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and agreements.

                  To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitability transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.

                  To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a by-product of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strongpoint for the further development of the revolutionary movement.

                  The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

                  That is the essence of making revolutionary use of reforms and agreements under the conditions of imperialism.

                  Oh hey, Stalin cites Lenin in his book titled Foundations of Leninism and argues for the exact same position I just showed Lenin expressed! What are the odds!

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    38·
                    2 days ago

                    If someone types a sentence or two…

                    They very rarely if every meant a giant essay no one will every read

                    Oh hey, Stalin cites Lenin in his book titled Foundations of Leninism

                    Why do you think that has anything to do with Marxism-Lenism?

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      If we get a progressive Dem that will name a progressive DNC chair after becoming president, we’re fucking there. A one party government that’s genuinely for the proletariat.

      America was apparently a Marxist leninist utopia in 2009 lol