Fuck you reddit 2.0, took you long enough. Thanks though, we’ll stop seeing your crap posters pollute our comment section from now on.
90% of people we ban come from world. Very funny that they said they saw a rise of hate speech from our instance though considering the worlders we ban are fucking genocidal maniacs and fascists. You can check the modlog (it’s unfortunately federated), we are one of the tamest instances when it comes to banning people and deleting comments/posts.
For any worlder that was based and liked interacting with lemmygrad (you will notice we did not ban good faith participants), I recommend you make an account on a third-party instance that federates with us, like ml or ee until they also defederate from us because we have principles 🙃
Fuck israel, Palestine will be free a month from now mark my words 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
On top of that, for the worlders finally breathing free again now that the scary tankies are away, you think the USSR wasn’t communist or whatever. You base that on whatever you’ve been taught in school. We’ve read things. We’ve actually gone beyond whatever our high school teachers said and looked into the USSR for ourselves. If you’re not cowards you will debate us about communism and “totalitarian” regimes, we’ll wipe the floor with you. Bet you don’t even know where the world totalitarian comes from or who coined it without looking it up.
And we retain our perfect track record of not blocking real instances while you further isolate yourselves from anything that might cause you some amount of discomfort. Really good democracy you got going there where wannabe tech bros instance admins decide for you what you’re allowed to see, must be those liberal values I hear so much about.
Literally the CIA, the biggest anticommunists on the block, dont consider him a dictator, based on the internal docs, one of which I just linked.
Also one party democracy is still democracy. How does having two or more shitty parties better reflect the will of the population compared to a proletarian party with internal factions?
One party ‘democracy’ absolutely is not democracy, it’s a dictatorship. The inability to establish new political parties is inherently anti-democratic. Also, since you mention the CIA document, here’s a document that refers to Stalin as an autocrat and dictator. I do appreciate that you aren’t hating on democracy, makes me glad lemm.ee never defederated hexbear.
The position of communists is that liberal democracy is farcical and only by suppressing and eventually annihilating the bourgeoisie as a class can democracy exist in a more proper sense. Not one Marxist hates democracy, their ideology is based upon making democratic power the most central power rather than capital, hence the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” i.e. “the vast majority of the population ruling society without constraint by the tiny minority, the bourgeoisie”.
How? You can still have competitive elections in one party states. Arguably moreso because there isn’t a bourgeois media apparatus picking winners.
No, it isnt. For example, banning the formation of a nazi party isn’t undemocratic. They literally have a different threshold of the paradox of tolerance that extends to all of the right wing, not just fascism.
The idea that parties existing or not is the thing that determines whether or not a democracy apparently exists is really bizarre.
From our point of view, working class people have a singular set of interests in opposition to the capitalist class. Capitalist nations have multiple parties because the ruling classes there are unified except in regards to maintain capitalism. Otherwise their interests conflict.
In America, the domestic bourgeoisie are more catered to by the Republicans, and the international bourgeoisie more the Democrats. That’s an exaggeration and broad strokes, but historically the reason they’re separate have been because they had separate sets of patronage networks and catered to different regions of the countries. Democrats in the late 19th century were represented by southern land owners and banks. Republicans were more the party of northern manufacturing.
So while the capitalist classes have separate interests requiring different sets of political interests, the working class aren’t in conflict with ourselves. We all want the same things. Higher wages, better healthcare, housing, fewer labor hours. And we can get all of that without splitting ourselves into competitive parties. Why would you form a party contrary to the interests of socialism in the first place?
Multiple parties in a socialist country is like inviting foreign capitalists to come in and sabotage democracy. It gives them a wedge with which to run their own little puppet candidates to weaken broad, unified socialist interests
Why? I can find you probably a dozen liberal thinkers (liberals in the original meaning of the word) who disagree with this assertion, and who thought the opposite actually. But this is more of a question for you, to help you start questioning things you might not have questioned before. Why is plurality automatically more democratic?
I love how he fucked off after this question specifically